HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sameer Jain, J.
Mukesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Secondary Education – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4157/2009
Decided On : 29-06-2022
Regularization - Employment Dispute - Industrial Dispute Act 1947, Section 25-F - Bhagwan Sahai v. Udyog Bhawan Common Facility Jaipur & anr.: 2009 (1) WLC 524 - State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularization of his services as a Class-IV employee, citing discrimination and deprivation of rights despite rendering uninterrupted service since 1993. The Industrial Court held the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The petitioner relied on judgments supporting regularization of similarly situated persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been rendering uninterrupted service and was discriminated against in comparison to similarly situated individuals who were regularized. The court also noted the applicability of judgments supporting the petitioner's case.
Issues: Regularization of employment, discrimination, deprivation of rights, applicability of judgments
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once similarly situated persons were regularized, there was no justified reason to discriminate against the petitioner. The court also noted the applicability of judgments supporting the petitioner's case, emphasizing the requirement of work and the petitioner's uninterrupted service.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner with immediate effect within three months.
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed with following prayers:-
"(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent for regularisation of his services on the post of Class-IV employee with effect from 25.09.1003, the date of his initial appointment with consequential benefit to regular pay scale.
(ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to pay him minimum in the scale of pay of Class-IV employee along with arrears of regular pay scale w.e.f. 25.09.1993 up till now with interest @ 18%.
(iii) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion on the post of L.D.C./U.D.C. as per seniority of the year 1993.
(iv) Any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to quash any adverse order passed against the petitioner for discontinuation of his services/retrenchment pending the writ petition.
(v) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents which this Hon'ble Court deems just, and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(vi) Cost of the writ petition."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed by Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer against a vacant regular post of Class-IV employee on 25.09.1993. Thereafter, he was discharging his duties of Class-IV employee in the respondent's office sincerely and has never been subjected to discontinuation or break in service. He was paid minimum wages per day since September 2003. In February 1996, the daily wagers were selected/regularized on Class-IV employee but petitioner was discriminated with and was deprived from the benefit of regularization, despite his seniority. He further submits that the petitioner was terminated on 23.11.1997. Against said termination order, petitioner raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Industrial Court, Ajmer, on the reference:-
"Whether the termiantion of the workmen, Mukesh Kumar son of Anandi Lal on 23.11.1997 by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, is legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
Vide order dated 16.06.2006, it was held that the termination was without compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act 1947 and as the juniors to the petitioner were made permanent, the workman was held entitled to permanent status and order of termination was quashed and set aside and reinstatement was made on the post with 20% back wages. Against the same, writ petition was preferred but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner joined services and it is categorically submitted that from reinstatement date, i.e. 03.03.2008, the petitioner has been discharging his duties, regularly on the post of Peon without any gap and as such the petitioner is entitled for regularization in terms of Hon'ble High Court order dated 12.08.2016 in SBCWP No. 18889/2013 titled Shiv Karan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble Court, in case of similarly situated persons, has held that unskilled daily wagers, appointed subsequent to the petitioner, were entitled for regularization.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Sahai v. Udyog Bhawan Common Facility Jaipur & anr.: 2009 (1) WLC 524. In the said case, the petitioner was reinstated in service as his termination was held illegal. It was held that the petitioner should also be held entitled to all those benefits (including regular pay scale and regular status) from such dates as given to similarly situated persons on ground of parity. In the light of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner request to grant the prayer sought in the petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the foundation of the case of the petitioner is on wrong facts. He was given seasonal/special time engagement during course of examination which was conducted by Board of Secondary Education, Praveshika, Varishtha Upadhyay etc. wherein co
AI
Regularization of employment and non-discrimination based on the continuous and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioner.
The appointment of similarly situated persons under available vacancies can distinguish a case from precedents and influence the court's decision on regularization.
Withdrawal of regularization based on educational qualifications after judicial directions is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
Employment rights cannot be denied based on initial appointment terms when substantive rights accrue through long-term continuous service and sanctioned posts exist.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to permit a fresh representation for retrospective regularization and the restriction on monetary benefits for a specified p....
The rejection of a case for regularization on the same ground previously rejected by the court is not legally sustainable.
The court ruled that administrative decisions regarding employment regularization must avoid arbitrary discrimination and adhere to principles of equal treatment under the law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.