Allowed

Smt.Vishakha Devi v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2016CW/2003/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking regularisation of the petitioner's services. Relying on the Umadevi judgment and noting thirty years of de facto service, the court directed the administration to consider the petitioner's case for regularisation within three months, rejecting defenses based on post availability or employment status.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted regularisation of services; respondents directed to follow procedures within three months.

Smt.Vishakha Devi Vs State and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Civil Writ Petition No.2003/2007

¶6

Shrimati Vishakha Devi versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶7

19.1.2016

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶9

Mr RC Joshi – for petitioner

¶10

None for respondents

¶11

BY THE COURT:

¶12

Vide order dated 6.1.2016, parties were directed to come prepared for final hearing of the case yet none is present on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

Learned counsel submits that petitioner is working with the non-petitioners for last more than 30 years but she has not been regularised in services. At one point of time, even petitioner's services were terminated but on a dispute raised before the Labour Court, an order of reinstatement with continuity of service was passed. The said award has already attained finality thus, by virtue of the award, petitioner continued in service. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors versus Umadevi(3) & ors”, (2006) 4 SCC 1, an employee completed 10 years of service, is entitled for consideration of his/her case for regularisation. The non-petitioners made consideration of

¶14

¶15

the case of the petitioner but declined regularisation holding that she is not eligible for it though the petitioner is in possession of the required qualifications, rather, post held by him is lowest post. Accordingly, proper exercise was not undertaken, that too, when a specific direction was given in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7367/1993 followed by a contempt petition.

¶16

I have considered the submissions and perused the record and find that petitioner is in second round of litigation. The first writ petition was decided by an elaborate judgment dealing with the objection of the nonpetitioners which includes that petitioner is a part time employee but the objection raised by the non-petitioner was not accepted and the fact aforesaid goes in favour of the petitioner. It is also a fact that at one point of time petitioner was terminated from service and on a challenge to the order before the Labour Court, a direction for reinstatement with continuity of service was passed and the said award has attained finality. The petitioner is virtually working for more than 30 years but her services have not been regularised.

¶17

The denial cannot be made on the pretext taken by the nonpetitioner either on the ground of non-availability of post or by treating her to be as part time employee. If the post was not available, how an employee can be continued in service for 30 years. Further, how payment of salary is made to her without a post and even salary was also enhanced from time to time to keep at part with the minimum wages.

¶18

¶19

Looking to all these reasons and as none is there to oppose the writ petition and the reply filed by the non-petitioner is quite sketchy, I find ground to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Non-petitioners are directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularisation of her services which would not be denied treating her to be part time employee or due to non-availability of the post. The regularisation would be made after considering her case in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). The consequential order of regularisation would be passed after completion of exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶20

(MN BHANDARI), J.

¶21

bnsharma

¶22

All corrections made in judgment/ order have been incorporated in judgment/ order being emailed.

¶23

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Smt.Vishakha Devi v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vishakha Devi v. State and Anr.

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

Harish Chand and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Balu Ram Barolia and Ors. Vs O P Meena

Manish and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Lakhmi Chand Dhobi Vs Smt Arti

Babu Lal Mali Vs Manoj Bhatt and Another

Smt Sapna Jhaadchud Vs Swetambar Jain Shrimal and Ors.