Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J., CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, J.
Nawal Singh S/o Sh. Kishan Singh – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Through Registrar General – Respondent
ORDER :
1.The petitioners were appointed as Drivers on ad hoc basis under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rule, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules of 2002’) in the year 2007, after undergoing the selection process. The ad hoc period was extended from time to time. In the meanwhile, the respondent - High Court vide order dated 17.07.2009 while dealing with the similar situated Class 4th employees, who were appointed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002, regularized their ad hoc services from the date of their initial appointment. The respondent-High Court on 22.06.2013, regularized the present petitioners as drivers, who were appointed on ad hoc basis between 27.10.2007 and 03.09.2011, after putting them to the screening committee for regularizing their services from the date of such order.
2. In the meanwhile, certain other 43 employees appointed between 2007 to 2011 as the petitioner, who were basically Class 4th employees appointed on ad hoc basis under the similar Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 and were regularized from the initial date of their appointment, were sought to be reversed in timeline imparting benefit of regularization to be given from the date of the order of
Discrimination in regularization of services violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, mandating equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
Regularisation – Ordinarily, regularization is a matter best left to policy decisions of employer and courts must exercise restraint in issuing directions – However, in case of undue discrimination, ....
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
The court emphasizes that regularization of temporary employees must adhere to principles of equality and fairness, ensuring parity in treatment for similarly situated employees.
Discriminatory treatment in employment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, necessitating equal consideration for regularization and pension benefits for similarly situated employees.
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
