SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
Narendra Singh S/o Shri Gambheer Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10804, 10807, 10808, 10812, 11058, 11060, 11066, 11067, 11210, 11268, 11270, 11274, 11603, 11608, 11609, 11624, 17066 of 2023
Decided On : 04-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V.L.S. Rajpurohit
For the Respondents: Rajesh Parihar, Ayush Gehlot, Rajesh Panwar

IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV) Service Rules, 1964 allows for regularization of employees who completed 10 years of service before a specified date, effective from the date of notification.

Headnote:

(A) Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 - Amendment Notification dated 27.01.2011 - Regularization of services - Petitioners completed 10 years of continuous service before 10.04.2006 and sought regularization from that date - Court held that the amendment provides for regularization effective from the date of notification, not retrospectively - The State's decision to amend the rules was intended to benefit employees without court intervention. (Paras 1, 6, 11)

(B) Regularization - The court emphasized that the amendment to Rule 10 allows for regularization of those who completed 10 years of service before a specified date, and any delay in implementation does not negate the right to regularization. (Paras 8, 10)

ORDER :

1. These writ petition have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the facts and prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11058/2023:

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class iv) Service Rules, 1964 as amended by the impugned Notification dated 27.01.2011 (Annex.1) may kindly be declared ultra virus and illegal to the extent regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of issuance of appointment order. A further direction be issued to the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Mait either from the date of eligibility of the petitioner i.e. 10.04.2006 or from the date of issuance of notification dated 27.01.2011 (Annex.1.).

Any other relief of which petitioners appears entitle to may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court are that the respondents made an amendment in Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class iv) Service Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1964’) for the purpose of regularization vide Notification dated 27.01.2011. The Notification dated 27.01.2011 reads as follows:

“In exercise of powers conferred under Section 337 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (Act No. 10 of 2009), the State Government hereby makes following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964, namely:

1. Short title and commencement:

(1) Those rules may be called the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2011.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Amendment of Rule 10: In rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 after the existing proviso, the following new provisions shall be added, namely:

“Provided further that the persons, irregularly appointed on duly sanctioned posts and completed ten years service on 10.04.2006, without intervention of any court, and continuously working as such on the date of commencement of these amendment rules, shall be screened by a committee consisting of:

(i)

Chairperson of the Municipalities

Chairperson

(ii)

Deputy Director (Regional)

Member

(iii)

Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipality

Member Secretary

Provided they were eligible for appointment, as per rules on the date of their initial irregular appointment and vacancy is available at the time of screening. The Appointment Authority shall issue appointment order of the person, who is adjudged suitable by the Screening Committee and appointment shall be effective from the date of issue of such appointment order.

Provided also that the inter-se seniority of the persons screened under above proviso shall be determined on the basis of their length of such continuous service in the Municipality after their irregular appointment. These persons shall rank junior to the persons appointed regularly before the commencement of these amendment rules.”

2.1. After such amendment to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, the respondents kept on contemplating the regularization of the petitioners, but did not do the same. However, on 04.09.2017, vide Annex-13 to the writ petition, a committee was constituted to give effect to the aforesaid notification. The said committee, consisting of Chairman, Deputy Director, Commissioner, made a detailed contemplation of the petitioners’ case, the relevant para detailing the contemplation of the present petitioner reads as follows:

^^Jh ujsUæ flag dh tUe fnukad 01-07-1968 gSA Jh flag 8 d{kk mÙkh.kZ gSA vk;qDr uxjifj"kn~ Mwaxjiwj }kjk fn;s x, Áek.k&i=ksa vuqlkj fnukad 10-04-2006 dks bUgsa fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq, 10 o"kZ dh lsok;sa iw.kZ gks pqdh gSaA orZeku esa fujarj dk;kZy; uxji

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top