[2026:RJ-JD:9976]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4715/2026 Ram Kumar Meghwal S/o Shri Adu Ram Meghwal, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Near Chotina Kua, Bhinasar, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Dy. Director, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Chopra, Katla Rani Bazaar, Bikaner.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

24/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“xxxxx i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f.1.7.1997 in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mod Singh.

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to give remuneration to the petitioner directly through the Department instead of placement agency.

iii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, in the alternative and without prejudice to the above, the respondents be directed to give minimum of the pay-scale to the petitioner.

XXXXXX”

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner

was initially appointed on 01.10.1991 on the post of Cook-cum-

Class IV against a vacant post. He continued in service up to 01.05.1993 and thereafter, by order dated 06.05.1993, his engagement was extended up to 31.03.1994. However, with effect from 01.04.1994, his services came to be terminated.

3.1. Aggrieved by the said termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Bikaner. The learned Labour Court, Bikaner, vide its judgment and award dated 29.10.2004, allowed the claim petition and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. In pursuance of the said award, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated

19.06.2006 and he joined duties on 01.07.2006.

3.2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that once continuity of service has been granted and his services are liable to be counted from the initial date of appointment, i.e. 01.10.1991, he is entitled to the consequential benefits. It has also been pleaded in the writ petition that though the petitioner was appointed by the respondent-Department and has been discharging duties with it since 01.10.1991, his remuneration is being disbursed through a placement agency and being aggrieved thereof, petitioner prefers this writ petition.

4. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cook-cum-Class IV Employee against a vacant post and continued his services thereafter and in the meantime, service of the petitioner was terminated and by way of the award passed by the Labour Court at Bikaner, petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 19.06.2006. He submits that since 2006, petitioner is working regularly with the respondents, however, has not been regularized till date. He submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in SBCWP No.1030/2013 : “Parmeshwar Lal v. The Director Social Justice and Empowerment Department & Anr.”; wherein, the Coordinate Bench allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order and directed respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of the service. He, thus, submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Parmeshwar Lal (supra)

5