Allowed

Niwas Ram Meena v. Raj Finace Corp and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2019CW/2228/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the order removing a Chokidar from service, holding it illegal as termination was not linked to the specific unit's de-acquisition. The Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service from initial appointment, regularisation, and consequential benefits based on honouring prior labour court decrees.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 3.2.2011 quashed; interim order made absolute; petitioner reinstated with continuity from 1992; directed regularisation with consequential benefits.

Niwas Ram Meena Vs Raj Finace Corp and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 2228/2011

¶3

Niwas Ram Meena S/o Shri Mali Ram Meena, Village Idali Via Nursingpura Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Managing Director.

¶7

Branch Manager, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Sikar.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Manjeet Kaur

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

09/01/2019

¶13

Instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 3.2.2011 whereby the respondents have removed the petitioner from the post of Chokidar. Vide order dated 21.2.2011 this Court stayed the operation of impugned order dated 3^rd February, 2011.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the interim order passed on 21.2.2011, the respondents did not allow the petitioner to join and it is only after the contempt petition was preferred that the respondents allowed him to join in March, 2017. The contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn after the compliance was made.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits further that the petitioner had been appointed originally in September, 1992 as a Chokidar and worked up to August, 1993 with the respondents

¶16

(2 of 6)

¶17

[CW-2228/2011]

¶18

whereafter he was removed from service. Against the same he raised dispute before the labour Court and the labour Court vide its award dated 18.8.2008 directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. However, no other benefits were given to the petitioner. In compliance of the award dated 18.8.2008 petitioner was taken back on duty on 17^th June, 2010 and was posted at a Unit. However, as the Unit was released by the RFC, the petitioner services were terminated again. It is his submission that the petitioner has been subjected to wrongful termination and once he had been directed to be reinstated, the respondents could not have terminated his services merely because the Unit was released from acquisition and the reinstatement was not continuous with the Unit.

¶19

Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated other Chokidars whose services had been dispensed with by the respondents, had also approached the labour Court and after they were reinstated by the labour Court, they have been regularised on the said post by the directions of this Court and the appeal preferred by the department against the said order has also been rejected by the Division Bench and, therefore, learned counsel prays that while the petitioner has been reinstated in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, his services should be treated as continuous from the date he was originally appointed in the year 1992 in similar fashion as has been done in another case by the respondents. It is his further case that those who were appointed later in point of time to the petitioner as daily wages Chokidar have been regularised.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent RFC submits that after the order having been passed

¶21

(3 of 6)

¶22

[CW-2228/2011]

¶23

by the labour Court dated 18.8.2008 the petitioner had submitted his joining on 29.8.2008 whereby he was asked by the Branch Manager to appear before him on working day so that he may be posted as a guard on daily wages basis vide letter dated 17.11.2008. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had not submitted his joining letter and had informed about his illness and stated that upon getting well he would join back duties and it is in the year 2010 that the petitioner submitted his joining letter and was accordingly taken back on duties. Learned counsel further submits that the award dated 18.8.2008 had only award stayed by this Court and, therefore, petitioner would not be entitled for continuity of service as it was not granted to him. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim parity with the other Chokidar employees in whose favour orders were passed of granting regularisation.

¶24

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have looked into the documents which have come on record including the documents handed over by the counsel for RFC which have also been perused by me.

¶25

This is a case where a person, who was working as a Chokidar with the respondents in the year 1992, was firstly removed in August 1993 and thereafter an award was passed in his favour on 18.8.2008 holding the termination as illegal and unjustified with directions of reinstatement.

¶26

The first question which this Court requires to examine is whether the award dated 18.8.2008 granted continuity of service to the petitioner. In normal course, an award has to be read as it says. A bare reading of the award shows that the termination has been held to be illegal and unjustified by the

¶27

(4 of 6)

¶28

[CW-2228/2011]

¶29

learned labour Court with directions of reinstatement. Thus, it is not a case where the petitioner was appointed afresh but is a case where his original termination was held to be illegal and accordingly, he would be entitled to continuity of service as termination from the date it was passed shall be held as illegal. The question whether he has to be given back wages for the intervening period or any other notional benefits was a separate aspect which was specifically denied in the award. Thus viewed, the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service from September 1992 however he would not be entitled for back wages from the August 1993 till 18.8.2008.

¶30

The next question which requires to be considered is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to wages from the date the award was passed up to the date of reinstatement. Once an award has been passed which may be further challenged or has been accepted, the concerned workmen would be entitled to all benefits from the date of the award even if allowed to join at later point of time.

¶31

The question now remains to be examined by this Court, apart from the aforesaid ancillary questions, is the legality of the impugned order dated 3.2.2011. A look at the order dated 3.2.2011 shows that the petitioner, who was posted by the Manager to perform his duties in a particular Unit has been removed only because the Unit has been dispossessed by the RFC. The work of Chokidar was required to be taken by the RFC. Merely because one Unit has been de-acquired and dispossessed by the RFC, the employee of the RFC could not have been removed as the appointment of the petitioner at the said Unit was not continuous with the working of the said Unit.

¶32

(5 of 6)

¶33

[CW-2228/2011]

¶34

Accordingly, impugned order dated 3.2.2011 is held to be illegal, unjustified and is accordingly quashed. The interim order passed before this Court dated 21.2.2011 is made absolute. Petitioner shall be entitled to be continue in service as if the order dated 3.2.2011 has not been passed.

¶35

By way of amending prayers, the petitioner has also prayed for seeking regularisation in view of similar orders have been passed by this Court in S.B. Ciril Writ Petition No.625/1998 (Mangi Lal Gurjar Vs. The Managing Director, RFC, Jaipur & Anr. Dated 25.3.2014.

¶36

Taking into consideration the amendment in the prayers, this Court has also heard learned counsels on the question regarding regularisation.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the petitioner’s case for regularisation. While reverting back with the same argument he submits that petitioner was not granted continuity of the service.

¶38

As this Court has already held the petitioner entitled to continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. September 1992, the argument does not hold water anymore and is accordingly rejected.

¶39

I have looked into the case of Mangi Lal Gurjar (Supra) find that the said petitioner was also engaged by the respondents as a Chokidar on 7.10.1987 and his services were abruptly terminated on 31.8.1988 whereby labour Court declared his termination illegal and he was reinstated. Relying upon the provisions of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1958 wherein the post of Chokidar exists and also taking into consideration another case of Mahesh Kumar Bairwa,

¶40

(6 of 6)

¶41

[CW-2228/2011]

¶42

this Court directed respondents RFC to regularise the service w.e.f. the date when his junior person Mahesh Kumar Bairwa regularised i.e. 14.6.1994. It is also noticed that Mahesh Kumar Bairwa was appointed in the year 1993 and it has come on record that the order was upheld by the Division Bench.

¶43

Taking over all view, I am satisfied that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Mangi Lal Gurjar and Mahesh Kumar Bairwa, who were appointed in the year 1987 and 1993 respectively while the petitioner was appointed in September 1992. In view, therefore, the petitioner would be also entitled all similar relief as granted by this Court to Mangi Lal Gurjar and upheld by the Division Bench.

¶44

Thus, this writ petition is allowed with further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation from the date Mahesh Kumar Bairwa was regularised and grant consequential benefits. However, taking into consideration directions issued by the labour Court only notional benefits shall be granted to the petitioner even though he may be regularised from 1992 till date of passing of the award i.e. 6^th August 2008. The said period shall be calculated notionally and actual wages shall be granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 6^th August 2008 the arrears so calculated and released to the petitioner within three months.

¶45

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. No

¶46

costs.

¶47

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶48

Anand 73

Niwas Ram Meena v. Raj Finace Corp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niwas Ram Meena v. Raj Finace Corp 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

Heera Lal Yogi Vs State and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Haldia Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Kalu Ram Gurjar Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.Jaipur

Lakhana Ram Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Nagar Palika Mandal and Anr. Vs President Asangathith Majdoor Santh Andanr

Amrit Ram Raidas Vs State Dep of Personnel Ors.