Allowed

Teja Ram v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2023CW/7906/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition seeking regularization of casual employees. The court held that since a coordinate bench and the Supreme Court had already granted regularization to similarly situated employees, the present petitioners are entitled to the same benefits under the principle of non-discrimination.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were directed to extend regularization benefits and complete the process within six weeks.

Teja Ram Vs Jai Narain Vyas University… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:40513]

[CW-7906/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶5

JODHPUR

¶6

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7906/2023

¶7

Teja Ram S/o Shri Sukha Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o House No. 116, Laxman Nagar, Maanpura, Jhalamand, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Bhava Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sargaro Ka Vas Debavas, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶9

Khinvraj S/o Shri Ruda Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Laxman Nagar, Maanpura, Jhalamand, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Versus	----Petitioners

¶11

Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar, University Campus, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶12

The Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, University Campus, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abhishek Sharma.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal a/w Ms.
	Mansavi Choudhary,on VC.

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶16

Order

¶17

24/11/2023

¶18

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no more res-integra, as the same is covered by the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Lalit Gehlot & Ors. Vs. The Jai Narain

¶19

Vyas University, Jodhpur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5666/2022) decided on 26.4.2023 along with other connected matters. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:-

¶20

“I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the pleadings made herein.

[2023:RJ-JD:40513]

[CW-7906/2023]

(2 of 6)

The undisputed facts in the present case are that the petitioners were appointed on different position through different modes i.e. casual basis, through placement agency, daily wage basis, etc., by respondent-University from time to time and they have been performing the regular nature of work without any break till date. In none of the cases of the petitioners, the engagement has been discontinued by the University till date. This Court is prima facie of the view that sufficient amount of work is available with the respondent-University which is being performed by the petitioners and, therefore, it can be termed that the petitioners are working on the posts which are having perennial nature of work. Thus, it can safely be presumed that the petitioners are working at par with the persons who have been regularly appointed by the University.

¶25

It is also worth noticing here that the Registrar of the University has communicated to the State Government vide letters dated 17.05.2022 & 03.06.2022 mentioning therein that the petitioners are similarly situated to the persons in whose favour the writ petitions have been allowed on the earlier occasions and the matter has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶26

This Court has also taken note of the fact that the cases of the petitioners are not distinguishable from the cases in which this Court has recently passed judgments in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10389/2018 (Bheru Singh V/s Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr.) on 23.05.2022 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2726/2019 (Suresh V/s Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr.) and other connected matters on 29.03.2022, the writ petitions were disposed of in presence of the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the controversy involved in the present case

(3 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:40513]

[CW-7906/2023]

is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Sharma (Supra).

¶31

On a pointed query being raised by the Court to the learned counsel for the respondents with respect to any difference between the set of employees who have approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petitions and the cases of those employees in whose favour the writ petitions were allowed by this Court on earlier occasions, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that there is no distinction between the set of employees in whose favour the matter has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the present petitioners.

¶32

This Court, thus, has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief which has been granted to the similarly situated employees of the University. Moreso, when the matter has been examined thoroughly, and the contentions which are sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the respondents have already been taken note in the earlier decisions, therefore, there is no justifiable reason for this Court to pass a different order other than the order which has been passed on the earlier occasions.

¶33

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the bunch of Special Leave Petitions arising out of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in identical situation in the case of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr. V/s Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc., reported in (2022) 1 S.C.R. 842 has held as under:-

¶34

“3. By order dated 07.02.2022, this Court issued a limited notice to restrict the benefits accruing from the regularization to three years prior to filing of th writ appeals. The order dated 07.02.2022 reads as under:-

¶35

We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitionerUniversity at length.

(4 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:40513]

[CW-7906/2023]

By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has directed to regularize the services of the respondents with all consequential benefits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting regularization, more particularly, the concerned employees have been continued in service, may be on contractual basis, for more than 15-30 years of service. The question of law, if any, is kept open.

¶40

Now, so far as the giving consequential benefits on regularization, we issue limited notice to the respondents, returnable on 14.03.2022 and to show cause why the benefit accruing from the regularization may not be restricted to the three years prior to filing of the wirt petitions.

¶41

Dasti, in addition, is permitted."

¶42

4. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf otf the appellant University and Dr. Vineet Kothari and Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents – original writ petitioners. These writ petitions were filed in the year 2018/2019. In order to see that there is no hearvy financial burden upon the University and at the same time to strike a balance and considering the fact that the respective original writ petitioners have worked for more than 15 to 30 years, if it is ordered that the actual consequential benefits on regularization of their services are restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petitions, while they are granted the benefit of regularization notionally and with continuity of the service from the date on which the other similarly situated employees were regularized, it will meet the ends of justice.

¶43

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and those of the learned Single Judge are hereby modified and it is ordered that the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to the actual consequential benefits on regularization for the period prior to three years of filing of the writ petitions only. However, they shall be entitled to continuity in service and benefits notionally on regularization, from the date on which the similarly situated employees were regularized.

¶44

All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

(5 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:40513]

[CW-7906/2023]

The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents to take a different view in these cases on the strength of the judgment relied upon by him in the case of Official Liquidator (supra) is noted to be rejected on the ground that there is no distinction between the two sets of employees in whose favour the judgments have been passed and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since in earlier decisions passed by this Court, the judgment of larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra) has been taken note of and those decisions were assailed by way of filing Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same have been decided by a detailed judgment in the case of Mukesh Sharma (supra), therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that later decisions were per incuriam is not sustainable.

¶49

This Court is also of the view that since the similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefit of regularization, the University should have taken up the cases of the respondents- petitioners on its own and as a model employer if a judgment has been pronounced by a Court of law, then the persons who are similarly situated and working in the organization should not be dragged in the Courts of law by not extending the same benefits as the employer is under an obligation to extend the same benefit to those persons who have not even approached the Court of law. The view taken by this Court in the preceding para is fortified by the observations of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in somewhat similar case titled as Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 3529 has also held as under:-

¶50

“13. By an order dated 17.10.2011, persons similarly situated to the Respondents were absorbed by being given the benefit of regularization. The Division Bench of the High Court has taken note of the discriminatory approach of the university in

(6 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:40513]

[CW-7906/2023]

conferring the benefit of regularization to some and not to all those daily wagers who are eligible. There is no error in the judgment of the High Court which warrants interference by this Court. Eligible daily wagers in accordance with the scheme have been eagerly awaiting regularization as per the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University’s case (supra). The right of the Respondents for regularization has been correctly recognized by the High Court."

¶55

The other arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents have elaborately been taken note of in earlier judgments and those judgments have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, no different view is possible in the facts and circumstances of the present cases.

¶56

In view of the discussions made herein above, the present writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioners, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr. V/s Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc. reported in (2022) 1 S.C.R. 842 (supra). It is also directed that all this exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶57

Stay applications as well as other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶58

However, there shall be no order as to cost.”

¶59

In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶60

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶61

1-/Jitender//-

Teja Ram v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teja Ram v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur

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

Amar Lal Patel Vs State of Rajasthan

Prema Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Suraj Kumar Katara Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanraj Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan