Remanded

State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2022WRW/172/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition filed by State of Rajasthan challenging an order quashing termination and directing reinstatement with salary fixation. Court recalled the order to adjudicate entitlement to regular salary and pay fixation for a reinstated daily wager, restoring the matter for final disposal.

What did the court decide?

The order passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.683/2017 dated 09.10.2017 is recalled, and the review petition is allowed to adjudicate on entitlement to regular salary.

State of Rajasthan Vs Bhanwar Lal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 172/2019

¶4

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶5

Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Tehsil Ratangarh District Churu

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bhanwar Lal S/o Nanak Ram, Village Bhawandesar Tehsil Ratangarh District Churu

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG. Mr. Pranjul Mehta. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Bissa. Mr. S.G. Ojha

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

12/12/2022

¶14

By way of present review petition, the State of Rajasthan is seeking review of order dated 09.10.2017 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.683/2017 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal Soni).

¶15

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent-writ petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6764/2009 (Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) before learned Single Bench assailing the order dated 24.06.2009 whereby his services were terminated after reinstating him in compliance of the award dated 28.03.1997 passed by Labour Court, Bikaner. The respondent-writ petitioner alleged before

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[WRW-172/2019]

¶18

learned Single Judge that in the year 1991, his services were terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947’).

¶19

Being aggrieved by the termination of services, an industrial dispute was raised before Labour Court, Bikaner. The Labour Court vide its award dated 28.03.1997 declared the retrenchment of respondent-writ petitioner from services to be violative of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947. Consequently, the respondent-writ petitioner was held entitled to be reinstated in services.

¶20

The challenge laid to the award dated 28.03.1997 by the appellant-respondents before learned Single Bench came to be rejected vide order dated 20.05.2008. The appellants-respondents thereafter reinstated respondent-writ petitioner in service on 16.06.2009 and within eight days thereafter on 24.06.2009, his services were again terminated. In the writ petition filed by the respondents-appellants being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6764/2009, the learned Single Bench vide order dated 08.02.2017 quashed and set aside the impugned termination order directing the appellants-respondents to reinstate the respondent-writ petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and continuity of service. Learned Single Bench further ordered that respondent-writ petitioner shall be paid regular salary and his pay shall be fixed.

¶21

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.10.2017 dismissed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.683/2017 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal Soni) preferred by the appellants-respondents against the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by learned Single Bench.

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[WRW-172/2019]

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that by way of filing special appeal against the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by learned Single Bench, a challenge was made on two counts; firstly, the retrenchment/termination issued against the respondent–writ petitioner deserves to be upheld; secondly, the learned Single Bench ought not to have ordered payment of regular salary and pay fixations in favour of the respondent–writ petitioner. He submitted that the respondent–writ petitioner has already been reinstated in service. However, unless he is regularized and confirmed in service, he is not entitled for pay fixation in regular pay scales. Learned counsel thus requested that the order dated 09.10.2017 may be reviewed.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order under review deserves to be maintained being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

It is not in dispute before us that the respondent–writ petitioner at the time of termination from services was working as a Daily Wager with appellants-respondents. It is also not disputed that regular salary and pay fixation can be allowed in favour of the employees who work on regular basis against substantive post. In any case, there cannot be any automatic direction of regular salary and pay fixation, even in the cases where termination/retrenchment is declared to be violative of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶28

Accordingly,. The order dated 09.10.2017 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.683/2017 is recalled. The review petition is allowed only to adjudicate as to whether the respondent–writ

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[WRW-172/2019]

¶31

petitioner, as a consequence of order dated 24.06.2009 being quashed and set aside by this Court would be entitled for regular salary and pay fixation on reinstatement in service.

¶32

Let the appeal be restored to its original number and be listed for final disposal at admission stage in third week of January, 2023.

¶33

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶34

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶35

37-Prashant/-

State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Hemendra Kumari Chouhan

State of Rajasthan Vs Chattar Singh Rathore

M/S. Taiyab Motors, Vs the Union of India

N/S. Shree Parshwanath Corporation Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

M/S Shree Parshwanath Corporation Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

M/S. Shree Parshwanath Corporation, Vs Union of India