Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, GANESH RAM MEENA, JJ.
Dr. Gopal Sharan Gupta S/o Shri G.R. Gupta – Appellant
Versus
University of Rajasthan through its Registrar – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1041 of 2014, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 715 of 2015
Decided On : 20-01-2023
Regularization - University of Rajasthan - AIR 2011 SC 1193, AIR 2003 SC 1713 - The court discussed the claim for regularization of the writ petitioner, drawing parity with Research Associate. The court referred to the judgments in AIR 2011 SC 1193 and AIR 2003 SC 1713 to support the claim of parity between Research Assistant and Research Associate. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to regularization, drawing parity with Research Associate, and dismissed the appeal filed by the University of Rajasthan.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, Dr. Gopal Sharan Gupta, filed a writ petition for his claim for regularization. The learned Single Judge allowed the claim of regularization but the benefit of regularization was given w.e.f. 01.04.2011. The petitioner filed an appeal aggrieved by the order limiting actual benefits prospectively. University of Rajasthan also appealed against the judgment directing regularization of the writ petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitioner was entitled to regularization, drawing parity with Research Associate. The court held that the petitioner was appointed through a regular process of selection and was entitled to regularization. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the University of Rajasthan.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the claim for regularization, parity between Research Assistant and Research Associate, and the entitlement of the petitioner to actual benefits from an earlier date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to regularization, drawing parity with Research Associate, based on the similarity in qualifications and nature of duty performed by the Research Assistant and Research Associate. The court also held that the petitioner should be entitled to actual benefits from the date the vacant post was made available.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the University of Rajasthan was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed to the extent indicated in the judgment. The court directed all benefits arising from the order to be extended to the writ petitioner within a period of four months.
ORDER :
1. These two appeals arise out of order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge deciding a writ petition filed by writ petitioner-Dr. Gopal Sharan Gupta in the matter of his claim for regularization. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge allowed the claim of regularization but the benefit of regularization was given w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and in respect of the intervening period, only notional benefits were granted with a direction that actual benefits shall be payable to the petitioner from the date of passing of the order of regularization.
2. The writ petitioner has filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1041/2014 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent it limits actual benefits only prospectively from the date of passing of the order of regularization with the claim that the petitioner ought to be awarded actual benefits from an earlier date.
3. University of Rajasthan has preferred an appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge registered as D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 715/2015 as it is aggrieved by the directions of the learned Single Judge directing regularization of the writ petitioner.
4. Quintessential facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the second round of litigation between the parties is that the writ petitioner was initially appointed on 26.04.1991 as Research Assistant after a regular process of selection in an open advertisement with a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,200/- with certain conditions. His services were, later on, terminated which led to filing of writ petition, which was eventually allowed by learned Single Judge setting aside the order of termination. Though that order was challenged in appeal by the University, the principal reliefs granted to the writ petitioner were upheld and only modification made was to the effect that the writ petitioner shall not be entitled for any back-wages. Further, the Appellate Court observed that, for other purposes, so far as regularization or otherwise benefits are concerned for which the employee is entitled, the intervening period will be counted for the said purpose.
5. It appears that the order passed by the Court was not being complied with, which led to filing of contempt petition. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the parties settled the disputes and an order came to be passed on 24.11.2010 observing that the University has offered appointment to the writ petitioner at a consolidated salary of Rs. 9300/- per month, which has been accepted. However, the Court reserved the right to file appropriate proceedings to claim proper reliefs in accordance with law. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed writ petition claiming following reliefs:
(II) The respondents may be directed to give petitioner the benefit of continuity of service, regularization etc. as per directions given by Hon’ble Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 733/2000 decided on 24.03.2009.
(III) The order dated 20.12.2010 may be modified to the extent it denies aforesaid benefits to him. Other consequential benefits may also be given to him.
(IV) Any prejudicial order, if passed during the pendency of the appeal, which may kindly be taken on record and after examining the same be quashed and set aside.
(V) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
6. The relief sought was for grant of benefit of higher pay scale, proper pay fixation and re-designation as Assistant Professor claiming parity with Research Associate. The petitioner had also prayed for continuity of service, regularization relying upo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the writ petitioner to regularization, drawing parity with Research Associate, based on the similarity in qualifications and nat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of treating similarly situated persons alike and the obligation of the employer to extend benefits to all eligible employees.
Contractual employees have no right to claim regularization or equivalent benefits unless stipulated by law, as established by precedent.
The cancellation of an employee's regularization based on arbitrary grounds violates principles of non-discrimination and due process, necessitating restoration of benefits to similarly situated indi....
Regularization of public employment requires adherence to established recruitment processes; negative equality cannot justify irregular appointments.
The right to pension is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away without due process, and similarly situated employees must be treated equally under the law.
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
