Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical (Group-Iv) Ayurvedic Department – Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. These batch of intra-court appeals, preferred by the State of Rajasthan and its functionaries of the Ayurved Department, have been listed together for analogous hearing, as they involve common questions of law and fact arising out of substantially identical orders passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court at both the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, and the Jaipur Bench.
1.1. The appeals at the Jaipur Bench were directed to be heard analogously with the connected matters pending at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in view of the order dated 11.09.2024, passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.881/2023 ( State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ramashankar Prateek ) and connected cases. By the said order, the Hon’ble Division Bench at Jaipur noted that the impugned orders in those writ petitions were based upon the judgment rendered in Bijendra Kumar Tyagi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11021/2020, decided on 12.01.2023, which itself was under challenge in appeals pending before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.
1.2. Taking into consideration the nature of reliefs sought, primarily concerning pensionary and terminal benefits of retired
Statutory regularisation requires that service benefits, including pension and ACP, must be calculated from the date of initial appointment, reinforcing equality rights and preventing discrimination.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of pensionary benefits for employees appointed prior to a certain date and subsequently regularized, as well as the requirement to ....
Prior contractual service of employees must be counted for pension and leave entitlements, and imposing a new probation period after long service is unjust.
The court ruled that employees similarly situated should be treated alike, emphasizing the right to regularization from the date of initial appointment and consequential benefits.
Equals are required to be treated equally, and dissimilar treatment cannot be accorded to the same class of people.
Discrimination in regularization of services violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, mandating equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
The court confirmed that employees' past service before regularization must be counted for pension eligibility, and delays in regularization by the State do not negate their entitlement.
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
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
