Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2876 (RAJ)

Narain Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-10-12

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has made the following prayer in the writ petition:- "(i) issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction, directing the State to regularise the service of the petitioner as LDC/Assistant (II) from the date of his appointment. (ii) that issue a writ, order or direction directing the State to regularise the deliberately break given to the petitioner on the last day of every month and consider his various representations in favour of the petitioner. (iii) that issue a writ, order or direction directing the State No.2 to pay the difference of the arrears of his salary to the petitioner from the date of his appointment for having regularly discharged and performed whole time and full time duties of LDC/Assistant (II) under the supervision of State No.2. (iv) that issue necessary direction or order directing the State to absorb and regularise the petitioner as L.D.C./Assistant (II) under the control of State No.2 as if he was regularly appointed. (v) that issue a direction or order directing the State to pay the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 4th November, 1991. (vi) that cost of this writ petition may also be quantified and allowed to the petitioner from the States. (vii) that any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be allowed to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner passed his Secondary Examination in the year 1976, Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1977 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, and thereafter he passed his B.Com. Examination in the year 1981 and M. Com. Examination in the year 1989 from Rajasthan University. 4. The petitioner contended that he was appointed as skilled labour on 30th of July, 1983 on daily wages basis in the office of State Board. His services were terminated on 12th October, 1989, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5464/1989. This Court allowed that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5464/1989 vide its judgment dated 4th of November, 1991 and it was directed that the petitioner will be reinstated on the same terms and conditions which were applicable in October, 1989, when his services were terminated. This Court allowed that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5464/1989 vide its judgment dated 4th of November, 1991 and it was directed that the petitioner will be reinstated on the same terms and conditions which were applicable in October, 1989, when his services were terminated. It was also made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the period of his termination but he will be taken back in service from the date of his submission of the duty-joining-report and the period of his termination will not be treated as interruption in the service. Thereafter the petitioner was allowed to join and then he is regularly holding the post. It is stated that although the petitioner is being paid the salary of the post of skilled labour but he is performing the duty of Assistant Gr.II'LDC, therefore, his case is liable to be considered for regualrization on the post of Assistant Gr.IILDC in the office of the State No.2 Board. 5. The State No.2 Board has filed its written reply to the writ petition wherein contents of the writ petition have not been admitted as mentioned and it is stated that the petitioner was appointed on 1st of April, 1989 on hourly rated basis. The termination of services of the petitioner on October, 1, 1989, and filing of the writ petition by the petitioner, which was allowed on 4th of November, 1991, have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 4.11.1991 the petitioner was allowed to join his duties and since then he is continuously holding the post. 6. It is also not disputed that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 4.11.1991 the petitioner was allowed to join his duties and since then he is continuously holding the post. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is similar with the case of similarly situated persons, namely, Ashvini Kumar, Gopal, Hukam Chand and Surendra Narain, who were appointed on daily wages basis as skilled labour to assist the Assistant Gr.II in the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, those persons filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2717/1991 for their regularization, their writ petition was allowed on 23rd of September, 1993 and the State Board was directed to reguatrize the services of all the persons on the post of Assistant Gr.II on the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner is on better footings than the case of other similarly situated persons named above for the reason that the petitioner was working since 1983, whereas the similarly situated persons, namely, Ashvini Kumar, Gopal and Hukam Chand, were appointed on daily wages basis in the year 1987, but they have been regualrized with effect from 1st of October, 1993 and also have been given promotion with effect from 1st of April, 1997, whereas the petitioner is still being treated and paid as daily wager. He has also filed an additional affidavit on 25th of November, 2005 in support of his above contention. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire case file. 8. From the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as rejoinder it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as skilled labour in the State Board in the year 1983. As per the case of the petitioner he worked from 1983 to 1989 continuously and on 12.10.1989 his services were terminated whereas the case of the State is that the petitioner did not continuously work as skilled labour from 1983 to 1989 but he worked from time to time meaning thereby there was some gap/intervals in his service during the period from 1983 to 1989. However, it is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were retrenched on 12th of October, 1989 and his Writ Petition No. 5464/1989 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 4th November, 1991 whereby the State Board was directed to reinstate him in service. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was reinstated back in service and since then he has been regularly working. This Court considered the case of regularisation of other similarly situated persons, namely, Ashvini Kumar, Hukam Chand, Gopal and Surdendra Narain, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2717/1991, which was allowed on 23rd of September, 1993. The operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "Consequently, I hereby allow this writ petition in so far as Sarva Shri Ashvini Kumar, Gopal and Hukam Chand are concerned and each of them have been appointed after calling their names from the Employment Exchange, Ajmer, after they had undergone interview and they have continued to work for about 4-5 years. They shall be regularised on the post of Assistant Gr.II and be appointed on probation for a period of one year. Within a period of one year they will be given two chances to pass type test and if or any of them fail to pass the type test as aforesaid, the Board shall be free to dispense with their services. They will be entitled to salary of Assistant Gr.II w.e.f. 1.10.1993." 9. The petitioner has also placed on the record copy of the order dated 24th of January, 2005 (Annexure-27) written by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, to the Deputy Secretary, Education (Group-VI) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, seeking permission from the State Government to regularise the services of the petitioner with a condition that the petitioner will qualify the written as well as type-test within a period of one year. In the said letter these facts have been referred that the petitioner Narain Singh has been working since 1983. He worked from 1983 to 1989 with some intervals and from 1989 he is working continuously. It is also mentioned in the said letter that earlier an opinion was given by Shri Ajay Rastogi, the counsel for the Board, to regualrize the services of the petitioner. He worked from 1983 to 1989 with some intervals and from 1989 he is working continuously. It is also mentioned in the said letter that earlier an opinion was given by Shri Ajay Rastogi, the counsel for the Board, to regualrize the services of the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the letter that the Board in its meeting dated 24-25th of September, 2004 has taken a decision that again a request be made to the State Government to gave sanction to regularise the services of the petitioner and Shri Surender Narain Mathur. 10. This Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2717/1991 (Ashvini Kumar & Others Vs. The Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan , Ajmer considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) 1 SCC 361 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the case of daily rated workers, who were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, the' Apex Court said that it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualification. However, this court, while allowing the writ petition of the aforesaid similarly situated persons, gave direction to regularise the services of the persons on the post of Assistant Gr.II but it was directed that they shall be appointed on probation for a period of one year and within a period of one year they will be given two chances to,pass type-test and if they or any of them fail to pass the type-test as aforesaid, the Board shall be free to dispense with their services. 11. The above discussion makes it clear that the petitioner worked with the respondent Board during the period 1983 to 1989 with some interval/gap and since 1989 he has been continuously working in the office of the State Board without any break. He passed his M.Com. Examination from the Rajasthan University. The writ petition of similarly situated persons was allowed and a direction was given to regularise their services and in pursuance of the directions of this court the services of similarly situated persons have already been regularised and thereafter they have also been given promotion as stated in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. Examination from the Rajasthan University. The writ petition of similarly situated persons was allowed and a direction was given to regularise their services and in pursuance of the directions of this court the services of similarly situated persons have already been regularised and thereafter they have also been given promotion as stated in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is on same footings and he also deserves similar relief. 12. Consequently, I hereby allow this writ petition with the following directions:- 1. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation on the post of Assistant Gr.II L.D.C. within one month from today. 2. It will be open for the State Board to put a condition to qualify the type-test within a period of one year in two chances. 3. The regularisation will be subject to a condition that the same will be considered only in case there are regular post available with the State Board. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed. 14. The costs is made easy.Petition Allowed. *******