Dismissed

Suresh Chand v. Shri Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 May 2014CCP/423/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a D.B. Civil Contempt Petition by holding that a Lok Adalat order provided for reinstatement with continuity of service and notional fixation in the pay scale, not regularization. The petitioner's claim for regularization was deemed misplaced, and the contempt imputation was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding that the order directed continuity of service and notional pay fixation, not regularization.

Suresh Chand Vs Shri Deepak Upreti and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

:: ORDER ::

¶4

D.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.423/ 2014 Suresh Chand Sain

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Shri Deepak Upreti, Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health Services, Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt.Secretariat, Jaipur & Ors.

¶7

02.05.2014

¶8

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

Mr.B.R.Rana for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :

¶12

Heard Mr.B.R.Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner had been engaged as a daily rated Class IV employee with the Medical and Health Services Department of the State on 13.5.1992 and his services were terminated on 1.5.1995. Alleging that the termination of his services had been in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') , he raised an industrial dispute, and on being referred to the jurisdictional Labour Court, the reference was answered in his favour. The award was unsuccessfully challenged by the Department before this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2926/ 2000, which was dismissed on 21.4.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 30.9.2005, and since then, he had been rendering his services without interruption on daily wages. It was thereafter that he instituted S.B.Civil Writ Petition

¶14

¶15

No.3309/ 2008 seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction for regularization of his services, which was disposed of on 5.8.2011 requiring him to submit an appropriate representation before the concerned authorities. His representation so filed, having been rejected, he returned to this Court with S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14824/ 2011, and eventually, the writ proceeding was laid before Mega Lok Adalat. Though by order dated 23.11.2013, as claimed by the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the circular No.F.12(7) RAJ/ VAD/ 2012 dated 23.10.2013, so far it related to cases of workmen under the Act, he has filed the instant application contending that the respondents herein are guilty of contempt of court, as his services have not been regularized, as contemplated by order dated 23.11.2013 and the benefit of regular pay scale, on the basis thereof, has not been accorded to him.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above seeking penal action.

¶17

We have examined the pleaded facts and the documents on record. The relevant portion of the circular dated 23.10.2013 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶18

“ 1. CASES RELATED TO WORKMEN UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT :

¶19

(a) SUCH OF THOSE CASES IN WHICH THERE IS AN AWARD OF REINSTATEMENT OF A WORKMAN WITH OR WITHOUT BACK WAGES OR ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE WORKMAN U/ S.33(2)(b) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 & THE STATE GOVERNMENT/ PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING IS IN

¶20

¶21

APPEAL/ WRIT PETITION OR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE WORKMAN U/ S.17B OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 MAY BE SETTLED THROUGH LOK ADALAT ON THE TERMS OF PROVIDING REINSTATEMENT WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND NOTIONAL FIXATION IN THE PAY-SCALE, PROVIDED THE WORKMAN AGREES TO FOREGO BACK WAGES UP TO THE DATE OF HIS REPORTING TO DUTY.”

¶22

The order dated 23.11.2013 is also set out as hereunder:- “ 23.11.2013

¶23

आज यह प्ऴावली लोक अदालत के सम्ष पेश हुई ! दोन� प्ष मय अिधव्व ागण उप 0 ! दोन� प्ष� ने आपसी सहमित से यह तय िकया िक अवाडर् अनुसार �िमक सुरेश च�द को सेवाम� िलया जा चुका है ! �िमक रा�य सरकर के सकुर्लर िद 23-10- २०१३ के अनुसार �िमक िक सेवा म� िनर�तरता का लाभ , नोशनल पिरलाभ िदए जाता है !

¶24

उ्व उपरो्व िनणर्य राजीनामा की भावना से लोक अदालत के सम्ष िकय गया ! प्ऴावली दािखल द�तर हो !”

¶25

A plain reading of the above quoted texts would evince that in terms of the circular, cases relatable to workmen under the Act were decided to be settled through Lok Adalat on the terms of providing reinstatement with continuity of service and notional fixation in the pay scale , provided the workman agreed to forgo back wages up to the date of his reporting to duty. Concept of regularization, as such, was neither engrafted therein nor contemplated. As would be apparent from the order dated 23.11.2013, the learned Lok Adalat, with reference to this circular, ordered continuity in service of the petitioner with notional benefits. As there could not have been any direction for regularization of his services, the petitioner's perception that by the order dated 23.11.2013, he was directed to be regularized in service in absence of

¶26

¶27

such direction is thus, wholly misplaced, being not borne out by the records. Consequently, his imputation that the respondents are guilty of wilful disobedience of the order dated 23.11.2013, cannot per se be entertained.

¶28

The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.

¶29

Skant/ -

¶30

Al l t he cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed. Shashi Kant Gaur

Suresh Chand v. Shri Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chand v. Shri Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Fizza Talat Hasni Vs State Medical and Healthors

University of Raj and Anr. Vs Dr Dinesh Vyas and Ors.

University of Raj and Anr. Vs Smt Vineeta Chauhan Ors.

Rpsc Vs Parvinder Kaur and Ors.

Serve Shree Solanki Marmo Vs State Mines Departmentors

Hanuman Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.