Allowed

Dharm Pal Singh v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2017CW/3134/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by a daily wager employee seeking regularization and consequential benefits after 19 years of service. Relying on the principle of parity and precedents, the Court granted regularization benefits on a notional basis from 1987, with actual benefits recognized from the date of the interim order in 1999.

What did the court decide?

Regularization and consequential benefits granted on a notional basis from 11/08/1987 and actual benefits from 21/06/1999.

Dharm Pal Singh Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3134 / 1999

¶4

Dharm Pal Singh son of Kanhaiya Lal, aged 32 years, resident of Chouhan Bhawan, Hasanpura-A, Near Loco Shed, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Bureau of Public Enterprises, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Rajasthan State Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd., Setu Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur-Agra Bye Pass Road, Jaipur, through its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Counsel For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma with

¶11

Ms. Mumal Rajvi &

¶12

Mr. Ram Niwas Meena

¶13

Counsel For Respondent(s) : Dr. PC Jain &

¶14

Mr. Amit Lubhaya

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶16

Judgment / Order

¶17

02/01/2017

¶18

1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition making following

¶19

prayers:-

¶20

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner on the post of Helper and in not making payment of monthly wages, may kindly be declared to be illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Constitution of India; and the respondents may be directed to regularise the petitioner on the post of Helper with all consequential benefits;

¶21

(2 of 6)

¶22

[CW-3134/1999]

¶23

(ii) by a further appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents may be directed to make payment of wages which are due to the petitioner and to go on making payment of monthly wages regularly to the petitioner. The respondents may further be restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner, including termination of his services;

¶24

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed;

¶25

(iv) That costs of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶26

The facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages since 11/08/1987 as a Helper in Mechanical Unit of the Rajasthan State Bridge Construction Corporation (in short, ‘Corporation’). The petitioner averred that he apprehended that his services were to be terminated and therefore, approached this Court for protecting his services as well as for consideration of regularization of his services. For the aforesaid relief, the petitioner filed this writ petition in which this Court granted indulgence vide order dt.21/06/1999 by passing an interim order whereby the respondents were directed not to terminate services of the petitioner.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner focused on the interim order by stating that services of the petitioner were protected in the

¶28

(3 of 6)

¶29

[CW-3134/1999]

¶30

umbrella of the interim order from 21/06/1999 and therefore, it virtually amounted to continuous service without any disruption.

¶31

The respondents filed a detailed reply in which they stated that there was no provision of regularization for a casual workman and there is no question of the petitioner’s services being regularized. The respondents also filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner was in the services of one M/s Swastik Agencies from 01/04/1999 to 31/03/2000. Counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the petitioner, on apprehension of termination of services, had come directly to this Court without invoking the remedy of the Labour Court as invoked by other persons with whom parity is being claimed by the petitioner. The employees, who have been regularized, had gone to the Labour Court and thereafter came to this Court before their services were regularized. The counsel for the respondents also argued that the petitioner had willfully abandoned his services w.e.f. 01/04/1999, joined M/s Swastik Agencies and remained in their employment until 31/03/2000.

¶32

The counsel for the petitioner strongly refuted the argument of abandonment of service and framed a sequence of events stating that an employee would not abandon the service on 01/04/1999; come to the Court; seeking immediate intervention of the Court and also convince the Court to pass an interim order on 21/06/1999 not to terminate services of the petitioner. Such conduct of immediately approaching the Court itself reflects

¶33

(4 of 6)

¶34

[CW-3134/1999]

¶35

anxiety of the petitioner to apprehend the loss of employment with the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the interim order dt.21/06/1999 became absolute after both the parties contested the same on merits. The counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of the Court to the fact that services of the petitioner were restored on 18/11/2009 on account of a contempt petition, bearing SB Civil Contempt Petition No.591/2002, filed by the petitioner.

¶36

After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that if a person is daily wages employee from 11/08/1987 and his services are continuing upto 01/04/1999, which is not disputed by both the parties, clearly shows the agony of the petitioner who rushed to the Court in a fairly reasonable time on 18/06/1999. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner’s services were restored back on 18/11/2009 and since then he is continuously discharging his services for a period of almost more than seven years. Thus, even as per the version of both the parties, the petitioner was in employment of the respondents as a daily wager for about twelve years from 11/08/1987 to 01/04/1999 and thereafter for seven years from 2009 to 2017. Thus, as per the admitted facts in the pleadings and strictly in accordance with the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner has almost discharged services for more than nineteen years. The employees of the respondents in past have been considered for regularization

¶37

(5 of 6)

¶38

[CW-3134/1999]

¶39

and such regularization has been granted to them. The counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corpn. Ltd., Jaipur (SB Civil Writ Petition No.6266/2005, decided on 27/01/2009, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

¶40

“This Court in somewhat similar circumstances in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Vs. Udyog Bhawan Common Facility Jaipur & Anr.-2009(1) WLC (Raj.) 524 following the judgment in UPSEB, supra and after considering judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi, supra, directed similar benefits to be granted to the petitioner workman concerned. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been granted continuity and that his junior including Kailash Chand Saini has been granted the aforesaid benefits, the petitioner would also be entitled to the similar treatment on the ground of parity.

¶41

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant similar benefits as was granted to Kailash Chand Saini with effect from 6.3.1987, however, on notional benefits. The petitioner shall be entitled to actual benefits only from 15.3.2000 on the same analogy because it is that date on which the Labour Court passed the award in his favour and all other benefits granted to Kailash Chand Saini shall be also be similarly granted to the petitioner.

¶42

Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment before the respondents. “

¶43

In light of the aforementioned discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant similar benefits of regularisation & consequential benefits as were granted to Kailash Chand Saini and Rakesh Kumar w.e.f. 11/08/1987. Such benefits, however, shall be on notional basis and the petitioner shall be entitled to actual benefits only from 21/06/1999 which is

¶44

(6 of 6)

¶45

[CW-3134/1999]

¶46

the date when the interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner. Compliance of the judgment may be made within three months from the date of production of copy of the same before the respondents.

¶47

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶48

Raghu

Dharm Pal Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharm Pal Singh v. State 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

Mohan Lal Jatav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr T C Sadasukhi Vs Medical Council of India Ors.

Sunil Arora Vs State Dep of Education Ors.

Vishal Machchhi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Yusuf @ Isup and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kumer Singh Awana Vs J v v N Ltd. andORS