Point of Law: Date of initial appointment of petitioner is to be considered in present matter for calculating 10 years of his services for purpose of regularization.

ORDER :

1. The present misc. application has been preferred by the petitioner seeking correction / modification in the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5842/2021.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by this Court is substituted by following order :-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed more than ten years of service on the post in question.

Mr. Anil Gaur, AAG submits the controversy is covered by the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11611/2013) on 18.02.2022. The order reads as follows:

“The facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner was appointed as Cook-cum-Chowkidar with the respondent-Department on 01.11.1995. His services were retrenched on 01.03.1997 against which a claim was filed before Labour Court, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’). Vide award dated 27.01.2001, the Labour Court proceeded on to allow the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner was declared to be entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service. A writ petition was preferred by the State against the award passed by the Labour Court which was dismissed on 25.02.2002 and consequently the petitioner was reinstated in service on 19.10.2002. From 01.08.2005, the petitioner was again not permitted to work. In the circumstances, the petitioner again preferred a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No.4979/2005 which was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2008 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner was reinstated on 06.06.2009.

After being reinstated when services of the petitioner were not regularized he preferred a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No.283/2011 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 12.01.2011. In the said writ petition it was observed and directed as under:

“In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and at the time of considering his case of the petitioner, the aforesaid notification shall be taken into account and appropriate orders may be passed within a period of three months from today. It is also made clear that if petitioner is found entitled for regularization then all benefits as provided in the notification shall be given to the petitioner.”

In pursuance to the directions of this Court, the petitioner moved a representation before the respondent-Department for regularization of his services but the same was rejected vide order dated 08.06.2011.

^^ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj esa fopkj/khu ,dy ihB ;kfpdk la[;k 283@2011 Jh egkohj izlkn ढksyh cuke ljdkj ,oa vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 12-01-2011 ds laca/k esa dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk 27-2-09 ds Øe esa xfBr Lkhfuax desVh dh fefVax fnukad 25-5-11 dks lEiUu gqbZA izdj.k dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkn'k ,oa dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk ds ifjizs{; esa ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk es vfu;fer prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fer djus gsrq fuEu 'krsaZ Fkh %&

1- lE;d :i ls Lohd`r fdUgha inksa ij vfu;fer :i ls fu;qDr fd;s x;s gksA

2- fdlh U;k;ky; ;k vf/kdj.k ds e/;{ksi ds fcuk fnukad 10-4-06 dks 10 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh dj pqds gksA

3- bu la'kks/ku fu;eksa ds izkjEHk dh rkjh[k dks fujUrj dk;Z dj gksA

fefVax esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ;kuqlkj Jh egkohj izlkn ढksyh] va'kdkyhu jlksbZ;ka@pkSdhnkj] jktdh; vEcsMdj Nk=kokl lqtkuxढ+ ftyk pq: eSl lfefr ds ek/;e ls fnukad 01-11- 1995 dks j[kk x;k FkkA eSl lfefr }kjk j[ks tkus ds le; in Lohd`r ugha Fkk rFkk budh fu;qfDr lE;d :i ls Lohd`r jlksbZ;ka ds fu;fer in ij ugha gqbZ FkhA

vr% ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 12-1-2011 ds vuqØe esa Jh egkohj izlkn ढksyh] va'kdkyhu jlksbZ;ka@pkSdhnkj] fu;fefrdj.k ds ik= ugha gSA ,lMh@&^^

Against the order dated 08.06.2011 the present writ petition has been preferred.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 08.06.2011