Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2188 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Lrs. of Jagdish Prasad

2018-11-12

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, C.J. - Application No.429/2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application is allowed accordingly. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 761/2018 3. Only issue argued in the appeal relates to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to treat late Jagdish Prasad Joshi as a permanent employee and grant him pensionary benefits from the date he superannuated and thereafter to the family. 4. Relevant facts to be noted are that late Jagdish Prasad Joshi was appointed as a daily wager in the office of the Primary Health Centre, Pulasar in February, 1982. His services were terminated on 31.3.1983. He raised an industrial dispute in early 1990. By an award dated 29.5.1997 he was directed to be reinstated in service with benefit of continuity and back wages. The appellants filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1752/1998 challenging the award. Late Jagdish Prasad Joshi filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of the award. 5. The two writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated 26.4.2001. Late Jagdish Prasad Joshi gave up his claim for back wages. The appellants did not give any consent for disposal of the writ petition filed by them. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellants noting that the only contention advanced was that the dispute was raised belatedly. The plea was rejected. The direction issued was that the award stood modified to the extent of grant of back wages. 6. Thereafter late Jagdish Prasad Joshi filed a writ petition seeking wages for work done and pensionary benefits. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge records that during the pendency of the writ petitions filed earlier, late Jagdish Prasad Joshi was permitted to join on 3.5.2000 but wages were not being paid to him inspite of he working. 7. We are not concerned with said facet of the dispute for the reason, as noted above, the only issue concerns the direction issued to treat late Jagdish Prasad Joshi as a regular employee and accord benefit of superannuation to him. We note that he superannuated on 31.10.2007. 8. Claim of regularization was premised on Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff) Act, 1999. We note that he superannuated on 31.10.2007. 8. Claim of regularization was premised on Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff) Act, 1999. Stand of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that as per the legal provision late Jagdish Prasad Joshi would be entitled to be considered for permanent status after completing 10 years service. 9. Surprisingly, as per the appellants, plea taken was that late Jagdish Prasad Joshi was reinstated in the year 1997, which is incorrect. As noted above, he was directed to be reinstated vide award dated 29.5.1997, but as a matter of fact was permitted to join duties on 3.5.2000. 10. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is that having made late Jagdish Prasad Joshi to litigate for a long it would be unjust to deny him benefit of terminal benefits. 11. We affirm the view but not on the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The reasons to grant terminal benefits to the deceased would be that the award dated 29.5.1997, while ordering reinstatement, directed continuity of service benefits with back wages. As noted above, the workman made a statement when the writ petition filed by the appellants and the writ petition filed by the workman were disposed of on 26.4.2001 that he forgoes his claim for back wages. The learned Single Judge noted the contention advanced by the appellants to challenge the award and rejected the same. The award was upheld but sans back wages. 12. Thus, for purposes of treating the deceased in service the date has to be reckoned with effect from February, 1982. As per the stand of the appellants benefit of temporary status had to be accorded after 10 years service and simultaneously claim for regularization to be considered. Meaning thereby, if the services of the deceased were not illegally terminated on 31.3.1983 he would have acquired temporary status in the year 1992 and entitled to pensionary benefits accordingly. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.