Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Ganga Ram Mali - Petitioner
Versus
State and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5932 of 2015
Decided On : 06-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Regularize service - Pensionary benefits from his initial appointment - Respondents may kindly be directed to regularize service of petitioner on post w.e.f. date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits – Date of regularization of petitioner shall be treated from date when recommendation for regularization has been made.
Finding of the Court :
Learned counsel for respondents although have opposed submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner but they are unable to refute applicability of judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in case of Om Prakash (supra) and Shree Gopal Gour (supra) - Date of regularization of petitioner shall be treated from date when recommendation for regularization has been made which was in consequence of order passed by this Court.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. By way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:
(ii) That after making regularization in aforesaid manner, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the benefits of selection grades to the petitioner on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service, while counting his service w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1.6.1984.
(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed make necessary pay fixation in favour of the petitioner and arrear arising out from pay fixations, may also be granted to the petitioner alongwith 18% interest per annum.
(iv) Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled, may be granted in his favour.
(v) The writ petition may be allowed with costs.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that earlier writ petition bearing No.3233/2018 was preferred by the petitioner and writ petition bearing No.3599/1998 was preferred by the Municipal Baord Sujangarh and both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 15.07.2014, which is as under:-
Upon aforesaid submission, two months time was granted to the State Government to take whatever decision as per the recommendations made by Municipal Council, Sujangarh vide communication dated 10.09.2013.
In view of above, the writ petitions are disposed of with expectations from the State Government to take final decision from the State Government to take final decision for regularization of the petitioner’s services and while doing so the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court will be considered for the purpose of regularization.”
3. In pursuance of the order dated 15.07.2014, regularization of the petitioner’s service was recommended by the Municipality vide proceedings dated 28.07.2014 (Annex.16) and thereafter the services of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 26.03.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have committed grave illegality in not regularizing his services w.e.f. 28.07.2014, when the recommendations for regularization was made. He has relied upon the judgment dated 11.04.2022 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13023/2011 (Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.). Relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
It is clear on record that when the services of petitioner were terminated for the first time in the year 1988 and the award in his favour was passed by the Labour Court in the year 1996, his services were specifically directed to be termed to be continuous. Secondly, vide communication dated 15.07.1999, the Local Self Department itself directed for regularization of services of the petitioner. In pursuance to the said directions only, the case of the petitioner was put up before the Committee and the Committee, in unequivocal terms recommended the petitioner’s case for regularization. It was just mala fide on the part of the Department that it did not choose to execute the recommendations of the Committee but chose to terminate the services of the petitioner at that point of time. However, writ petition of the petitioner being allowed and he being directed to be reinstated and for being regularized, the said directions would definitely relate back to the date when he was stood entitled
Temporary post means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time.
Temporary employees who have completed five years of continuous service are entitled to regularization of their service with effect from the date of completion of five years of service.
The petitioners cannot claim regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment and were entitled to count only half of their service rendered in consolidated pay posts for pension....
Pre-regularization service - claim of the employee should have been considered immediately if not through pre-regularization services and get counted for the purpose of terminal benefits
The acceptance of a regularization condition precludes the claim for retrospective appointment.
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
