[2026:RJ-JP:1576]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6501/2002 Chandradutt Panchal S/o Shri Kalyan Mal, aged about 48 years, R/o Village Gudha Nathawatan, District Bundi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Judge Labour Court, Kota.

2. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. Asstt. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Plan (MIW), Bundi.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC with Mr. Saumil Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

15/01/2026

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to modify award dated 26.02.1994 passed by learned Labour Court to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits and backwages. He further prayed for granting permanent status and modifying order dated 23.09.1995, thereby entitling the petitioner for all the consequential benefits treating continuity of his service from 01.07.1980 and to grant benefit of selection in grade on completion of 9 and 18 years of service to the petitioner.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially engaged as Beldar under Work Charged Service Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules of 1964'), however, his services were terminated in non complaince of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'). Petitioner raised industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred to the learned Labour Court, Kota, where award dated 26.02.1994 was passed, declaring the termination to be invalid along with direction of reinstatement with continuity in service but no relief of backwages or any other consequential benefits were granted to him. Thereupon, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 10.03.1995 and although semi-permanent status was granted to him but the benefits were restricted from 06.09.1994 and permanent status has also been granted to him w.e.f. 01.04.1994, which is causing grave prejudice to the petitioner and the benefits for which he is otherwise entitled under the Rules have not been paid to him.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised the objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on account of delay and laches. He submitted that the award dated 26.02.1994 as well as order dated 23.09.1995 have been challenged by the petitioner after a considerable delay of five years and no explanation whatsoever has been given in the writ petition for approaching this Court with such a long delay. He further submitted that even otherwise, benefits as per award have been granted to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents drew indulgence over Annexures R/1 & R/2 dated 11.04.2000 & 30.05.2000 respectively enclosed with reply in order to show that benefits have already been granted to the petitioner by treating him to be initial appointee of 01.07.1980 and benefit of semi-permanent status has been granted to him w.e.f. 01.07.1982.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that as the provision for grant of benefit of selection scale to the work charged employee was introduced by the State Government, whereby such benefits were to be granted as from 01.01.1998, therefore, by counting the service of the petitioner from the date of assignment of semi-permanent status i.e., 01.07.1982, as the petitioner had completed 16 years and 6 months of service as on 01.01.1998, benefit of selection grade on completion of 9 years of service was given to the petitioner. Thus, under these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

6. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

7. In the writ petition, no reasons have been assigned by the petitioner for not approaching this Court for seeking any modification in the award, which wa