##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:22564]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 148/2026

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Social Welfare

Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaisalmer

(Raj.).

3. Hostel Superintendent, Government Schedule Tribes

Hostel, Social Welfare Department, Ramdevra, District-

Jaisalmer (Raj.).

----Petitioners

Versus

Bhaira Ram Meghwal S/o Longaram Meghwal, R/o Village Badali

Nathusar, Pokhran, District Jaisalmer Presently Out Of Service

From The Post Of Cook Office Hostel Superintendent,

Government Schedule Caste Hostel, Social Welfare Department,

Ramdevra, District-Jaisalmer (Raj.).

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

12/05/2026

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is directed against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by

learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court, Jodhpur

(Raj.) (for brevity "the learned Tribunal") whereby, an application

No. 10/2020 (NCV No.10/2020) preferred by the respondent No.1/

workman (for brevity "the workman") under Section 33 (C) (2) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("Act of 1947") has been

allowed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that services of the workman

were retrenched by the petitioners vide order dated 31.05.1988

(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 01:41:08 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 03:45:59 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:22564] (2 of 3) [CW-148/2026]

which was successfully challenged by him by way of LCR No.

82/2006 which was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its award

dated 20.07.2016 whereby, the petitioners were directed to

reinstate the workman with continuity in service but, without back

wages. Alleging non-compliance of the direction contained in the

award dated 20.07.2016, the workman filed an application under

Section 33 (2) (C) of the "Act of 1947" which has been allowed by

the learned Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2024, impugned in

the writ petition.

3. Assailing the order, the only contention advanced by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court

towards the date of birth of the workman as recorded in the

Aadhar Card (Annexure-6), would submit that since it is

01.12.1958, the learned Tribunal erred in awarding monetary

benefits till October, 2020 in as much as he has already attained

the age of superannuation in December, 2018. He, therefore,

prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated

13.12.2024 be quashed and set aside to the extent of awarding

monetary benefits beyond the date of superannuation.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. A perusal of the order impugned reflects that the workman

was held entitled for salary and other emoluments from the month

of September, 2017 till October 2020 and arrears of revised pay

scale-2017 from January, 2017 to August, 2017. The only

objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is qua

superannuation age of the workman being 19.12.2018, his

disentitlement for the monetary benefits thereafter. However,

neither in their reply to the application filed by the workman nor,

(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 01:41:08 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 03:45:59 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:22564] (3 of 3) [CW-148/2026]

during the course of hearing before the learned Tribunal, they

raised any such objection that the workman stood retired in

December, 2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. As a

matter of fact, no evidence was produced before the learned

Tribunal by the petitioners to demonstrate that the workman stood

retired in December, 2018 upon attaining the age of

superannuation. Reliance placed on the date of birth mentioned in

Aadhar Card is totally misconceived in as much as it is a settled

law that the Aadhar Card is not the proof of date of birth of the

holder. (Please refer the judgment dated 24.10.2024 passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Saroj & Ors.

Vs. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors." passed in

Civil Ap