Allowed

Roopa v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2023CW/9414/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition for regularization of service. Relying on its own judgment Mahendra Singh Chundawat and noting a similar favorable outcome in Harish Prajapat, the court held that the petitioner, who has worked since 1987 with the university, deserves the same benefits as similarly situated candidates.

What did the court decide?

Regularization of petitioner's service w.e.f. 06.06.1988 and entitlement to consequential benefits.

Roopa Vs Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/003790]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9414/2020

¶4

Roopa S/o Uda, Aged About 54 Years, Rebariyo Ka Guda, Dhikali Road, Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur through its Registrar, Udaipur.

¶8

1. Comptroller, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur.

¶9

1. Dean, College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur. ----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Khichi For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Rathore

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

03/02/2023

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in question rests decided by the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Mahendra Singh Chundawat vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7743/2009 (decided on 05.12.2022). He further submits that even in the case of Harish Prajapat vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4549/2019 (decided on 18.09.2019) who was a similarly situated candidate, the petition has been allowed in his favour.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the above said submissions.

(2 of 2)

[2023/RJJD/003790]

[CW-9414/2020]

In Mahendra Singh Chundawat's case (supra), it was held as under:-

¶20

" In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had been working since 1987 with the respondent-University and has been granted regular pay scale vide order dated 06.06.1988 and similarly situated candidates have been regularized w.e.f. initial date of appointment, specifically Girdhar Gopal, who was appointed along with the petitioner on the same date, the petitioner deserves to be granted the same benefits.

¶21

In view of the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondentUniversity is directed to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.06.1988, i.e. his initial date of regular appointment. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits arising out of the said order."

¶22

In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is also allowed on the similar terms in the case of Mahendra Singh Chundawat (supra).

¶23

The stay petition and all pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶24

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶25

68-Sachin/-

Roopa v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopa v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology

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

Jayanti Lal Bhansali Vs Kailash Chandra Mehta

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Kamla Devi Alias Kmaa

Jayanti Lal Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Kumar and Ors. Vs Prema Ram and Anr.

R.G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Jagdish Kumar and Ors.

Kanchan Kanwar Vs Parbat Singh