Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 800 (RAJ)

Ramveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2023-04-10

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. The appellant was working as Excavator-cum-Loader Operator with the Municipal Council, Bikaner on contract basis, however, his contractual appointment was challenged by one Madan Lal by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2348/1994, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2002, wherein the learned Single Judge while observing that the contractual appointment of the appellant was only for a specific period and the same cannot be continued for unlimited period has directed the Municipal Council, Bikaner to undertake the selection process for appointment on the post of Excavator-cum-Loader Operator on regular basis, with a clarification that if the selection process is not completed within a period of four months, the services of the appellant would automatically come to an end. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 03.05.2002, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench vide judgment dated 19.3.2015 passed in DB Civil Special Appeal No.339/2002 has observed that there is no error of law in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, but at the same time, has observed that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in issuing direction that if the selection process is not completed within a period of four months, the services of the appellant would automatically come to an end, until they are extended on the extension being sought by the Municipal Council. After observing this, the Division Bench has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and taking into consideration age of the appellant i.e. 59 years at the relevant time, has directed that until the regular selections are made, he will be allowed to continue till he attains the age of superannuation. 4. Pursuant to the judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 19.03.2015, the appellant remained on the contractual appointment of the Municipal Council, Bikaner till he attains the age of 60 years. 5. After that, the appellant has filed a fresh writ petition before this Court praying that the respondent- Municipal Council may be directed to grant the service as well as the retiral benefits to him. 6. 5. After that, the appellant has filed a fresh writ petition before this Court praying that the respondent- Municipal Council may be directed to grant the service as well as the retiral benefits to him. 6. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2348/1994 decided on 03.05.2002 and in DB Civil Special Appeal No.339/2002 decided on 19.03.2015, has dismissed the writ petition while observing that the Division Bench has specifically held that the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellant was granted the contractual appointment only till the regular selections are made on the post and that the appellant was directed to be conditnued until regular selection is made, hence, it is clear that the Division Bench did not intend or direct for grant of other service benefits or retiral benefits to the appellant and therefore the issue already decided cannot be reopened and no order in favour of the appellant for grant of service benefits or retiral benefits can be passed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the judgment passed by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, we do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench, which is under challenge in this appeal. 8. Hence, this Special Appeal Writ is hereby dismissed.