##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:4573]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20936/2019

Kishan Lal S/o Shri Ramdev, Aged About 59 Years, Jariye

Pradesh Mahamantri, Anusuchit Jati/jan Jati Mahasangh, Dhola

Bhata Mukhya Marg Nagvai, Ajmer, District Ajmer.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Executive Officer, Janswasthya Abhiyantriki Vibhag, Nagar

Khand, Utpadan Avem Vitran, Nal Godam, Ajmer.

2. Mukhya Abhiyanta, Janswasthya Abhiyantriki Vibhag, Raj.

Sarkar, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain

Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with

Ms. Sneha Kaushal,

Ms. Gunjan Chawla and

Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

31/01/2026

1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with

following prayer:-

“1- ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns”k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ”k

tkjh dj vokMZ fnukad 15-10-2019 esa ;kph eqvkotk :- 2]00]000

fnyk;s tkus ds vkns”k dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gksus ds dkj.k

vikLr djus dh d`ik djsaA

2- ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns'k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ'k tkjh

dj izR;FkhZ dks funsZf'kr djsa fd ;kph dks lsok dh fujUrjrk]

fiNys iw.kZ osru o vU; lHkh ifjykHkksa lfgr Hkqxrku e; 12

izfr'kr C;kt ds djsaA

3- vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; izdj.k ds rF;ksa dks

ns[krs gq;s mfpr le>s fnykus dh d`ik djsaA ”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour

Court has declared termination order dated 26.02.2000 as unfair

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 11:10:05 AM)

(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 10:06:29 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4573] (2 of 5) [CW-20936/2019]

and illegal, but instead of reinstatement with all consequential

benefits, the petitioner was awarded one-time compensation of

₹2,00,000/-. He further submits that the petitioner has rendered

nine years' service and same is acknowledged by the respondents

before the Industrial Tribunal. He also submits that the award of

₹2,00,000/- as compensation for nine years' service is insufficient

in view of this judgment dated 29.01.2025 in case of Amit Kumar

Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & ANR. in Civil Appeal

No(s). ………….. of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Civil) No(s).

20902/2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further

submits that if the petitioner is not reinstated in the service, then

at least compensation on the basis of farmula as suggested in

case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & ANR.

(supra) be granted to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents opposed

the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted

that neither there was any sanctioned post nor selection of

petitioner on regular post. He further referred judgment dated

31.07.2018 passed in case of The Director, Tiger Project,

Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial

Tribunal, Alwar and Anr. : DB Special Appeal Writ

No.406/2018 and bunch of petitions and submitted that as per

formula adopted by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, a

workman is entitled for compensation of ₹1,00,000/- if his

services are less than one year, ₹1,50,000/- for service upto 2

years, and if same is three years then ₹2,50,000/-, but in case it

is more than three years then ₹3,00,000/-. He submits that the

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 11:10:05 AM)

(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 10:06:29 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4573] (3 of 5) [CW-20936/2019]

writ petition may be disposed in light of judgment of the Division

Bench and maximum compensation payable is ₹3,00,000/-.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material placed on record.

5. The Labour Court in award has observed that the petitioner

has rendered nine years of service with the respondents and

termination of service on 26.02.2000 was unfair and illegal, but

instead of reinstatement to the service, the workman was granted

compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.

6. The respondents have not challenged the award, therefore

the termination of service on 26.02.2000 is unfair and illegal. The

observation made it clear that the petitioner has rendered nine

years of service with the respondent. Th