IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that continuity of service, as determined by prior judgments, is crucial for regularization, and the state must adhere to court directives regarding employee rights.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit 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.

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 is totally bad in the eyes of law as all the reasons stated in the said order for rejection of his representation are totally illegal. He submitted that the fact of his being appointed through the Mess Committee, as alleged by the respondent-Department, had already been considered and adjudicated by the Labour Court in the year 2001 and it was the specific finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner was not an employee of Mess Committee but was an employee of the State Government. Counsel argued that therefore, at this stage, the same question cannot be raised by the State and neither can this Court readjudicate the same.

The second ground stated in the rejection order by the respondent-Department that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 without intervention of the Court, is also refuted by the Counsel on the ground that way back in the year 2001 and then in the year 2008 there has been a specific finding in his favor and his services had been directed to be deemed to be continuous. Counsel argued that therefore, his services ought to have been considered to be continuous and he was entitled for regularization w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.11.1995. The third ground stated by the respondent-Department for rejection was that the petitioner was not in continuous service on the date of the amended rules i.e. 27.02.2009 therefore, his services cannot be regularized. In rebuttal, counsel submitted that by virtue of the orders of the Labour Court and the High Court his services were to be deemed to be continuous from the year 1995 and therefore, he did complete 10 years of servic