Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 180 (RAJ)

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Banwari Lal Soni

2020-01-21

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANGEET LODHA

body2020
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(i) That the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 290/00110/16 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court thinks just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of petitioner." 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondent/applicant was initially appointed as Class IV Employee in the petitioner/School-Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sardarshahar, District Churu on 20.12.1986 as daily wages casual labour. On 18.07.1989, the services of the respondent/applicant were terminated, but upon challenge being laid to the said termination before the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 22.05.1996, ordered the respondent to be reinstated in continuation of the earlier services. Respondent/applicant's services were to be treated as continuous, but for the absence from 18.07.1989 to 22.05.1996, the back wages were crystallized to Rs. 1200/- as a one time compensation; however, from the date of the said order, the respondent/applicant was held entitled for complete wages till his reinstatement. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent/applicant was informed by the petitioner-School vide its letter dated 03.08.1996 about his reinstatement with back wages. The consequential resumption of the services of the respondent/applicant was done on 06.08.1996. However, the petitioner/School being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.05.1996 passed by the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, which was also dismissed, and special appeal preferred against the same bearing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 42/1998 too was dismissed on 10.02.1998, and thus, the aforementioned judgment and award dated 22.05.1996 acquired finality. 3. In compliance of the directions of the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner, the respondent/applicant continued as daily wage worker till 11.02.2010, but his services were again terminated in the year 2011 on account of willful absence from duties from 11.02.2010 to 11.03.2011 without any justifiable reason. 3. In compliance of the directions of the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner, the respondent/applicant continued as daily wage worker till 11.02.2010, but his services were again terminated in the year 2011 on account of willful absence from duties from 11.02.2010 to 11.03.2011 without any justifiable reason. The respondent/applicant raised his grievances before the Conciliation Officer [Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)] and the parties arrived at compromise on 22.12.2011, whereby the petitioner/School again allowed the respondent/applicant to join with effect from 23.12.2011 as Night Chowkidar Girls Hostel. Order was accordingly passed by the Labour Commissioner on 22.12.2011. 4. The respondent/applicant thereafter, served a notice for demand of justice dated 07.09.2012 for regularization of his service on the post of Class IV Employee (Group 'D' Post) and to grant him regular pay scale at par with Ashok Kumar, Badri Prasad and Radhey Shyam. The petitioner/School replied the aforementioned notice vide its letter dated 23.09.2012 informing the respondent/applicant that the regularization with retrospective effect was not permissible. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/applicant approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur by way of preferring an original application bearing Original Application No. 290/00033/2013. The said original application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 28.10.2014 directing the respondents to decide the claim of the respondent/applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said order. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent/applicant submitted a representation dated 19.11.2014 alongwith a copy of the order dated 28.10.2014, but the respondent/applicant's claim was again rejected by the authorities of the petitioner/School vide order dated 30.01.2015. The respondent/applicant thereafter, preferred Original Application No. 290/00110/16 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 08.03.2019, while directing the petitioner/School to pass necessary order for grant of temporary status to the respondent/applicant from the date the applicant became eligible in view of DoPT Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, and thereafter, consider his case for regularization. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner/School. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner/School. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training, Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, the regularization of the respondent/applicant was not possible, as the respondent/applicant did not undergo regular selection process. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as perused the record of the case. 8. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned order, has rightly dealt with the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 on the basis of the case law cited before it, while concluding that even if Group 'D' Post was not available or respondent/applicant's name was not sponsored by the employment exchange, he would still be entitled for regularization, as he had put in a long tenure of service. The learned Tribunal has further rightly noted that the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 required one year's of continuous service prior to the issuance thereof, and it is an accepted position that the respondent/applicant has rendered more than one year's of continuous service prior to 10.09.1993. 9. This Court finds that the petitioner who joined the service on 20.12.1986 was in service until 18.07.1989. Moreover, the judgment and award dated 22.05.1996 passed by the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner gave the respondent/applicant the status of being in continuous service thereafter also. Further in pursuance of the said order, after joining on 06.08.1996, the respondent/applicant again continued in service upto 11.02.2010, and again an order was passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) arising out of the compromise between the parties on 22.11.2011, whereafter also the respondent/applicant had continued in service. Thus, the service of the respondent/applicant is continuous and quite long justifying the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. 10. This Court also finds that the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 is not an impediment for considering the case of the respondent/applicant for grant of temporary status/regularization, as the judgment and award dated 22.05.1996 passed by the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner had acquired finality in favour of the respondent/applicant, as mentioned above. Thus, vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rightly directed consideration of the respondent/applicant for temporary status and subsequent regularization and also his entitlement for all consequential benefits. 11. Thus, vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rightly directed consideration of the respondent/applicant for temporary status and subsequent regularization and also his entitlement for all consequential benefits. 11. In view of the above, no interference in the present writ petition is called for and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.