Dismissed

Ram Kalap and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Mar 2021CW/3221/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed over two decades ago seeking regularization of services and wage claims against the State and a corporation. The court observed an apparent delay of more than 20 years and refused to allow amendment to seek reinstatement, citing laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on account of laches and delay; no regularization or reinstatement was granted.

Ram Kalap and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CW-3221/1999]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3221/1999

¶5

(1) Ram Kaap, aged 34 years, son of Shri Rajmal Choudhari, Resident of Village Gajhadiya (Mouja Duboli), Post Langadi, Tehsil Hata, Distt. Kashi Nagar.

¶6

(2) Arvind Kumar Rai, aged 30 years, son of Shri Shiv Shankar Rai, Resident of Village & Post Jokhara, P. S. Sonapar, Distt. Ajamgarh.

¶7

….Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Bureau of Public Enterprises, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd. Setu Bhawan, jhalana Doongri, Jaipur-Agra Bye pass Road, Jaipur, through its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gauraan Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anoop Dhand

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

02/03/2021

¶15

The petitioners by way of this writ petition have prayed as under:-

¶16

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after perusing the same, may be pleased to allow the writ petition and-

¶17

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioners on the post of Operator 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

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-3221/1999]

¶20

respondents may be directed to regularise the petitioners on the post of Operator with all consequential benefits;

¶21

(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 petitioners and to go on making payment of monthly wages regularly, to the petitioners. The respondents may further be restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners, including termination of his service;

¶22

(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;

¶23

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

¶24

Reply has been filed and it is noticed that the petitioners’ services were dispensed with w.e.f. 1.7.1999 and they are not serving with the respondents. It is noticed that an application has been moved seeking amendment in the prayer clause by the petitioners on 5.10.2019 stating that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners’ services were dispensed with wrongfully and they have worked for 12 years from 1983 till 2002 and therefore, submits that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioners alongwith consequential benefits.

¶25

This court finds that writ petition was preferred on 21.6.1999 seeking regularization while the services were dispensed with w.e.f. 1.7.1999. As per the respondents, no attempt was made by the petitioners for seeking amendment in the writ petition nor they have raised a dispute before the Labour Court. As per the information received from the counsel

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-3221/1999]

¶28

for the petitioner, more than 20 years have passed. The application for seeking amendment has been filed after 20 years after filing of the writ petition. The delay is apparent.

¶29

In view thereof, no amendment can be allowed, at this stage as the petitioners’ services have already been dispensed with, the prayer for regularization cannot be examined.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on account of laches and delay.

¶31

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶32

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶33

Anu /3

Ram Kalap and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kalap and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Assistant Engineer (O and M-Ii) Vs Kachru Khan, Son of Meeru Khan

Mahendra Meena S/O Shri Prahlad Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Durgesh Verma S/O Shri Lal Chand Verma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ghisya Ram Meena Vs State and Ors.

Tara Chand and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Hari Singh Vs R C S a T Jaipur and Ors.