Dismissed

Daluram Verma v. State

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2023CW/6961/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order dismissing a writ petition where the High Court upheld the grant of selection scale benefits from the date of regularization, relying on Supreme Court precedents, finding the petitioner not entitled to benefits from initial appointment. Petition dismissed as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as devoid of merit; benefit of first and second selection scale granted to petitioner shall be with effect from date of regularization.

Daluram Verma Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:27196]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6961/2006

¶4

Dalu Ram Verma Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Raigar, Raigaron Ka Mohallah, Duasa

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through The Director, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶8

The President, Nagar Palika, Dausa

¶9

The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Dausa

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.F.Baig, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶13

06/10/2023

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions against the respondents to grant him benefit of first and second selection scale with effect from his initial date of appointment i.e. 16.08.1982.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Watchman by the respondents on 16.08.1982 but his services were illegally terminated in violation of mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter read as ‘Act of 1947’).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents before the Industrial Tribunal by way of industrial dispute.

¶17

Learned counsel submits that vide award dated 29.04.1988, the order of termination was quashed and set aside with direction

[2023:RJ-JP:27196]

[CW-6961/2006]

(2 of 3)

to the respondents to reinstate back the petitioner with continuity in service and back wages were also to be given. Learned counsel submitted that services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 02.06.1988.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of first and second selection scale on completion of 9/18 years of service with effect from his initial date of appointment, so appropriate directions be issued in this regard.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that initial engagement of the petitioner was not regular.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that after reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of Watchman, his services were regularized by the respondents vide order dated 02.06.1988 and accordingly, the benefit of first and second selection scale was granted to him with effect from the date of his services were regularized.

¶25

Learned counsel submitted that under these circumstances, this fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Watchman by the respondents on 16.08.1982 and his services were terminated on 06.04.1983 and thereafter the Labour Court quashed the order of termination with direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service with continuity.

¶26

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

[2023:RJ-JP:27196]

[CW-6961/2006]

(3 of 3)

This fact is not in dispute that services of the petitioner were regularized by the respondents vide order dated 02.06.1988, the only question remains under consideration before this Court as whether the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of first and second selection scale with effect from his initial date of appointment or not with effect from the date of his regularization.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment passed by the Apex in the cases of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in (2019) 12 SCC 49; Surendra Mohnot Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 14 SCC 77 . Learned counsel has specifically contended that an employee is entitled to get benefit of selection scale with effect from the date of his regularization in service and not from the date of his initial engagement.

¶32

Hence, under these circumstances respondents have not caused any illegality in granting the benefits of selection scale to the petitioner with effect from the date of his regularization/confirmation.

¶33

I find no error in the decision taken by the State of Rajasthan for granting the benefits of selection scale to the petitioner with effect from the date, when the services of the petitioner were regularized/confirmed.

¶34

The petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶35

All application(s) (pending, if any) also stands dismissed.

¶36

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶37

Monika/161

Daluram Verma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daluram Verma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimla Choudhary Vs State of Raj and Ors.

V.N. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Regional Manager Vs M/S Parasarampuriya Texfabs Limited

Parmeshwar Vs Bhagwani and Ors.

Komal Agarwal/Kritika Agarwal (Minor) Vs Central Board of Secondary Education through Its Secretary

Mangtu Ram Vs Addi District and Session Andors