Dismissed

Pukhraj v. R.S.E.B.and Anr.

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2022CW/1756/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal matter, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award. The court upheld the Labour Court's decision to deny fixation on the post of lineman due to the grievance being time-barred and lack of qualifying evidence.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit and all pending applications were disposed of.

Pukhraj Vs R.S.E.B.and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1756/1999

¶3

Pukhraj S/o Mangal Dass, by Caste Vaishnav, R/o Chand Pol Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur through its Secretary.

¶7

The Assistant Engineer, City Sub-Division-C-II, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Udit Mathur

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

25/07/2022

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 02.03.1998 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur.

¶14

The claim before the Labour Court, Jodhpur which was referred on 24.09.1993 was made for the following prayers:

¶15

“ , ” - ;g gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed Jh iq[kjkt dks fnukWd 01-04-1968 ls ykbZuesu / ok;jesu f}rh; ds in ij osrueku J`a[kyk 3 ( rhu ) esa fQDl inksUur fd;k tkosaA

¶16

“ ch ” - ;g gS fd Jfed dks fnukWd 01-04-1968 ls ykbZueSu / ok;jeSu f}rh; ds in ij osru dh vUrj jkf’k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkosaA “ lh ” - ;g gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks ykbZueSu / ok;jeSu f}rh; dh osru J`a[kyk esa fnukWd 01-041968 ls fQDl fd;k tkosaA

¶17

(2 of 3) [CW-1756/1999]

¶18

“ Mh ” - ;g gS fd mDr fookn ds :g ds vuqlkj ekuuh; vnkyr gktk tks mfpr le>s eq> izkFkhZ ds gd esa o vizkFkhZ fon~;qr e.My ds fo:} ikfjr djsaA

¶19

“ bZ ” - ;g gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks mDr DySe dk [kpkZ fnyk;k tkosaA ”

¶20

The claim petition of the petitioner was rejected by the Labour Court, Jodhpur on the ground that the petitioner was fixed as Helper Grade-II w.e.f. 01.04.1968 vide order dated 27.08.1979 and was further promoted as Helper Grade-I vide order dated 01.04.1987. After the order being passed way back in the year 1979, the petitioner raised the present dispute for the first time in the year 1993. Therefore, the Labour Court, Jodhpur gave a specific finding that all the prayers made in the said claim being highly time barred, could not be entertained. The Labour Court, Jodhpur also reached to a specific conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that he had ever worked as a lineman and therefore, could not be granted the relief as prayed for.

¶21

A perusal of the record as well as the award passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur makes it clear that the petitioner entered into the services with the respondent-department as Work Charge employee in the year 1964 and was fixed as Helper Grade-II in the year 1979 w.e.f 01.04.1968. Vide the present claim the petitioner has prayed to be fixed on the post of lineman w.e.f. 01.04.1968. It is clear on record that the first order of fixation of the petitioner was passed in the year 1979 and the petitioner did not raise any grievance against the same at that point of time. Further, he was promoted in the year 1987 as Helper Grade-I and that order too, was accepted by him without any protest. For the first time in the

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-1756/1999]

¶24

year 1993, he prayed to be fixed on the post of lineman on the ground that he had been performing the functions of the lineman. A perusal of the award shows that the Labour Court, Jodhpur had reached to the specific finding that the petitioner did not possess the qualifications as required for the lineman and moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that he had worked as a lineman.

¶25

In view of the fact that the petitioner raised the present dispute after a delay of almost 15 years of the passing of the order dated 27.08.1979, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award dated 02.03.1998 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur which is a detailed and a speaking order, even considering the aspects of the required qualifications and the nature of work performed by the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶26

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶27

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶28

84-Dharmendra/-

Pukhraj v. R.S.E.B.and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pukhraj v. R.S.E.B.and Anr.

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

Kailash Singh Vs Raj. State Road Transport Corporation

Chail Singh Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rakesh Songara Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimla Katara Vs the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited to the Secretary

Kamal Kumar Nagar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dayal Ram Garasia Vs the State of Rajasthan