[2026:RJ-JP:238]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13016/2011 Satu Lal S/o Shri Mauji Ram, aged about 39 years, R/o Birodha, Tehsil Maniya, District Dholpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary to the Government Department of Ayurved, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Bhartiya Health and Ayurvedic Department, Secretariat, Jaipur through its Secretary.

3. Director, Directorate of Ayurved Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC Ms. Karishma Soni HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

06/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner, who has been engaged on alleged part time basis for a considerable length of time and has continuously discharged duties of a perennial and essential nature. The petitioner further seeks consequential service benefits, contending that the prolonged denial of regularization is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles

14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

2. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner was initially engaged as Class IV Employee/Ward Boy on 10.07.1984 at Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Dholpur. However, his services were terminated by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner raised industrial dispute, which culminated in award dated 21.01.1993 passed by Labour Court Bharatpur directing for reinstatement of the petitioner along with continuity in service. It is stated that in compliance of award of Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated on 12.02.1996, however, when his services were not regularized, he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 212/1997 for seeking regularization. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2010 directing the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents for considering the case of the petitioner pursuant to notification dated 08.07.2009 issued by the respondent-Government for considering the cases of regularization in compliance of directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is further submitted that in compliance of order dated 18.03.2010 passed by this Court in earlier writ petition of the petitioner, he submitted his representation. However, the claim of regularization of petitioner has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 01.06.2011 on the ground that the claim put forward by the petitioner does not come within the purview of notification dated 08.07.2009. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have placed on record the minutes of meeting of a screening committee, which considered the case of regularization of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was never appointed against a duly sanctioned post and was in fact continued under the orders passed by the Labour Court therefore, benefit of regularization under notification dated 08.07.2009 cannot be granted to the petitioner.

3. The facts, which are largely undisputed, reveal that the petitioner was initially engaged by the respondent department to meet administrative and functional requirements. Though the engagement was described as part-timer, the petitioner has continued in service uninterruptedly for several years and has performed duties identical in nature to those discharged by regularly appointed employees. The petitioner has worked under the direct control and supervision of the respondents. Despite repeated representations, the respondents have not taken any steps to regularize the petitioner’s services.

4. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner’s engagement was purely on part time and does not confer any right to regulariza