Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
Kanhiya Lal Nai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6469/2020
Decided On : 30-09-2022
Regularisation - Employment - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Article 39(d) r/w with Article 43 - Lala Ram Saini v the State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Circular dated 27.02.2009 - Regularisation of employees working on temporary basis for more than 10 years - Long service treated as substantive service - Regularisation from the date of initial appointment as a class-IV employee - Release of pension and other retiral benefits
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as 'Gate Keeper' on a temporary basis and later as 'Octroi Collector'. After the abolition of octroi, the petitioner's services were rendered surplus. The petitioner sought regularisation of his services, citing 40 years of continuous service and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had served continuously for 40 years and that his services were similar to those of a regular class-IV employee. The court referred to a precedent judgment and directed the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services from the date of initial appointment as a class-IV employee and release pension and other retiral benefits.
Issues: Regularisation of services, violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, entitlement to pension and retiral benefits
Ratio Decidendi: Long service on a temporary basis can be treated as substantive service, and employees working for more than 10 years can be regularised as per the circular dated 27.02.2009. The court directed the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services from the date of initial appointment as a class-IV employee and release pension and other retiral benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to regularise the petitioner's services from the date of initial appointment as a class-IV employee and release pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioner was not entitled to claim any arrears of pay as a consequence of pay-fixation in the pay-scale applicable for class-IV employees.
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as 'Gate Keeper' vide order dated 05.08.1981 in Panchayat Samiti, Lunkaransar on temporary basis. The petitioner joined services on 14.08.1981 which were extended from time to time. In the year 1992, a resolution was adopted in the meeting of Panchyat Samiti, Lunkaransar dated 23.10.1992 whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Octroi Collector'.
2. After abolishment of octroi in the State of Rajasthan, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila parishad, Bikaner enquired about the status of employees working at Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar providing services related to octroi collection and consequently, had been rendered surplus. The Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar furnished necessary details pertaining to all the employees who had been rendered surplus to the Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
3. An order dated 06.08.1998, was passed by the State Government stating inter alia that the employees who were working in connection with collection and management of octroi shall not be retrenched from services. Subsequently, the petitioner continued in the employment of Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar uninterruptedly from the date of initial appointment i.e. 14.08.1981. The Zila Parishad, Bikaner vide letter dated 23.11.2007, forwarded a list of employees working in various Gram Panchayats falling under its jurisdiction for accommodation of employees on other posts who were rendered surplus due to abolition of octroi in the State of Rajasthan.
4. The Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 27.11.2016 allowed minimum pay-scale of class-IV to employees, who were discharging duties similar to the petitioner, after abolition of octroi. However, the name of the petitioner did not find a mention in the said list. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is that his services had been utilized by the respondent-department for 40 years without any break yet the same had not been regularised, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had continuously worked in the respondent-department for almost 40 years discharging duties in similar fashion as of a regular class-IV employee.
6. It was further submitted that Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar and Zila Parishad, Bikaner had time and again requested the State Government through various communications along with furnishing necessary details, pertaining to the services discharged by the petitioner in the department for the purposes of regularisation but to no avail. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner had discharged duties in the respondent-department against the post of class-IV employee which were perennial in nature and it would be thus in violation of Article 39(d) r/w with Article 43 of the Constitution of India if regularisation of the petitioner in the pay scale applicable for employees working against class-IV posts is not allowed to him. Counsel urged that the petitioner during pendency of the writ petition had stood superannuated from services in the month of October 2021, therefore, respondents may be directed to release pension and other retiral benefits by regularising petitioner's services from the year 1981.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not appointed through regular mode of selection for class-IV post. It was also submitted that the petitioner was engaged by Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar for collection of octroi on temporary basis, therefore after abolition of octroi in normal course, petitioner's services should have been retrenched but he was allowed to continue on humanitarian grounds pursuant to the order of the State Government dated 06.08.1998. It was submitted that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and after superannuation from services, the petitioner is not entitled to claim regularisation.
8. Heard learned c
AI
Long-term temporary employees are entitled to regularization and benefits under constitutional provisions ensuring equality and fair treatment.
Long-service employees in sanctioned roles are entitled to regularization despite initial irregular agreements, reinforcing the need for adherence to constitutional hiring principles.
Regularization of employment and non-discrimination based on the continuous and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization after completing ten years of service on sanctioned and vacant posts, as supported by constitutional....
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
