Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Rekha Borana, J.
Om Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9636/2017
Decided On : 10-10-2022
Regularization - Services - [Uma Devi's case, Gopal Singh's case, Narendra Kumar Tiwari's case, Basudeb Debnath's case, Krishan Kumar Saini's case, Jai Narain Vyas University's case] - The court discussed the principles laid down in Uma Devi's case and its subsequent interpretations in various cases, emphasizing the entitlement to regularization of services after completion of 10 years of service and the obligation of the state to regularize the services of similarly situated employees. The court also highlighted the one-time measure aspect and the need for regular recruitments to fill vacant sanctioned posts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner had been working with the respondent-Department as Langari (Cook) on a wholly temporary basis since April 1995. His representation for regularization of services was rejected, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had completed 10 years of service with the respondent-Department and was entitled to regularization of his services in accordance with the principles laid down in Uma Devi's case and subsequent interpretations. The court also emphasized the obligation of the respondent-Department to apply the directions issued in rem to all similarly situated employees.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement to regularization of the petitioner's services after completion of 10 years of service, considering the principles laid down in Uma Devi's case and subsequent interpretations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to regularization of services after completing 10 years of service, emphasizing the obligation of the state to regularize the services of similarly situated employees and the need for regular recruitments to fill vacant sanctioned posts.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondent-Department to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his completion of 10 years of services with the respondent-Department, with all consequential benefits. The respondent-Department was given three months to comply with the order.
JUDGMENT
Rekha Borana, J. - The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.06.2017 (Annex. -12) whereby the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his services has been rejected.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had been working with the respondent-Department as Langari (Cook) on wholly temporary basis w.e.f. the month of April, 1995 but despite 20 years of service with the respondent-Department, his services were not regularized. Earlier, for the same relief, a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12571/2015 was preferred by the petitioner which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2016 and in the said writ petition it was directed as under:
"In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra) as well as the provisions of the Rules of 1999 as amended on 27.02.2009 and pass a speaking order.
In case, the petitioner is entitled to grant of relief, the same would be granted to him with all consequential benefits.
The salary in minimum of pay-scale, if not already being paid to the petitioner, be paid forthwith.
The needful may be done by the respondents within period of three months from the date of this judgment."
3. In pursuance to the abovementioned directions the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide the impugned order against which the present writ petition has been preferred.
4. It is relevant to take note of the fact that there being other similarly situated employees with the respondent-Department working as Langari (Cook), various writ petitions were filed from time to time.
5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in one such case of Gopal Singh v. State & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4478/1995 decided on 28.05.2009 which judgment was further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. He submitted that his case cannot be differentiated from that of Gopal Singh and his services too deserve to be regularized after completion of 10 years of service. He further submitted that in view of the specific directions of the Court in the earlier writ petition by the petitioner his case ought to have been considered in terms of the judgment as passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors.; (2006) 4 SCC 1 which has not been considered by the respondent-Department and his representation has been rejected illegally dehors the principles as laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the earlier internal communications of the department, because of a bonafide error, it was communicated that the petitioner had completed more than 20 years of service with the respondent-Department without any interruption. He submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner had not completed 10 years of uninterrupted or continuous service with the respondent-Department and therefore, his representation was rightly rejected by the respondent-Department as the same could not be guided by the principles as laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization also because he was not working on a sanctioned post and was working on a total temporary post on temporary basis.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. A perusal of communications dated 31.03.2015 and 16.04.2015 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Nagaur (the office wherein the petitioner was working), shows that because the petitioner had completed a period of 20 years of service from the year 1995 to 2015, he was recommended for regularization in terms of notification dated 27.02.2009 of the State Government as well as the judgment pas
Entitlement to regularization of services after completion of 10 years of service, obligation of the state to regularize the services of similarly situated employees, and the need for regular recruit....
Date of initial appointment of petitioner is to be considered in matter for calculating 10 years of his services for purpose of regularization.
Date of initial appointment of petitioner is to be considered in present matter for calculating 10 years of his services for purpose of regularization.
Date of initial appointment is to be considered in matter for calculating 10 years of services for purpose of regularization.
Date of initial appointment is to be considered in matter for calculating 10 years of services for purpose of regularization.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
