Allowed

Raghuveer Singh Gehlot v. Jai Narain Vyas University,Jodhpur and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2008CW/1787/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Directs the respondent University to consider the petitioner's case for regularization on the post of Library Assistant, having worked since 1995, within three months, following the Supreme Court's Uma Devi judgment on regularization of irregular appointments.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner for regularization on post of Library Assistant and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Raghuveer Singh Gehlot Vs Jai Narain Vyas… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1787/2005 (Raghuveer Singh Vs. JNVU & Ors.)

¶5

Date of order : 2.9.2008

¶6

P R E S E N T

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

¶8

Mr. P.S. Bhati, for the petitioner. Ms. Kusum Rao, for the respondents.

¶9

In this case, the petitioner is claiming regularization on the post of Library Assistant on the ground that he is working in the respondent University since 1985 on contract as well as temporary basis. Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the case of the petitioner for regularization is required to be considered by the respondent-University.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents-

¶11

¶12

University controverted the fact of continuance of services of the petitioner and submitted that for some time his services were dis-continued.

¶13

In my opinion, whatever facts may be there but admittedly the petitioner is continuously working in the respondent-University since 1995 and performing his duties as Library Assistant. Therefore, it is for the University to consider the candidature of the petitioner in light of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that efforts should be made for regularisation of those employees who are working from last 10-15 years and for the same the Union of India, State Government and instrumentalities of State should take steps to regularize as a one time measure to regulate the services. Paras 53 to 55 of the Uma Devi's judgment (supra) are as follows :-

¶14

“One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases of irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa, R.N.Nanjundappa and B.N.Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the

¶15

¶16

services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within a six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but no sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

¶17

It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.

¶18

In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary

¶19

¶20

and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of

¶21

¶22

other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.”.

¶23

In this view of the matter while following the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Library Assistant. The

¶24

¶25

respondents are directed to take final decision and pass appropriate orders with regard to regularizing the services of the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid directions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.

¶28

arun

Raghuveer Singh Gehlot v. Jai Narain Vyas University,Jodhpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer Singh Gehlot v. Jai Narain Vyas University,Jodhpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Pawan Kumar @ Bittu Gora

State Vs Vinod Kumar and Anr.

M.L. Chouhan Vs State and Ors.

Rajendra Tater Vs Ram Lubhaya

Dr.Guljari Lal Gupta Vs State and Ors.

Shanker Lal Vs State and Ors.