Allowed

Hukala v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2023CW/9455/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed three consolidated writ petitions by cooks working in government hostels. Relying on a prior coordinate bench decision and the Supreme Court judgment in Mod Singh, the court held the petitioners entitled to regularization w.e.f. the date of their respective phase and directed respondents to pay consequential benefits with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners held entitled to regularization w.e.f. date of commencement of respective phase and consequential benefits with interest @ 6% per annum.

Hukala Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4916/2021

¶4

Amra S/o Shri Vesta, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Bhil (S.t.), Resident Of 732, Bodalpada Ghatol, Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara. Presently Working As Cook In Govt. Savitri Bai Phule Girls Hostel, Ghatol, District Banswara.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Social Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur.

¶9

The Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Banswara.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5790/2021

¶12

Giriraj Meghwal S/o Shri Bhuraral, Aged About 47 Years, B/c Meghwal (Sc), R/o Kapren, District Bundi, Presently Working As Cook In Govt. Ambedkar Boys Hostel Kapren, District Bundi.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶16

The Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur.

¶17

The Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Bundi.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9455/2021

¶20

Hukala S/o Shri Jivala, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Bhil (S.t.), Resident Of 3, Badupada, Darobadiya, Tehsil Khuhalgarh, District Banswara, Presently Working As Cook In Govt. Ambedkar Boys Hostel, Bari Sarwa, District Banswara.

¶21

----Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Social Welfare Department, Jaipur.

¶24

The Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur.

¶25

The Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Banswara.

¶26

(2 of 4)

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG

¶29

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶30

Order

¶31

18/01/2023

¶32

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit the controversy is covered by the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Mohan Lal Vs. State (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3386/2003) on 22.12.2006. The order reads as follows:

¶33

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Dy. Government Advocate.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in spite of the specific order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents have failed to regularize services of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as cook with the respondent no.3 in the month of July, 1993 on consolidated salary of Rs.350/-, which was later increased to Rs.600/-. He was required to prepare food for the inmates in the hostel. This Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3453/1994Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors decided on 26th May, 1995 directed the respondents to make payment of salary of the cook working with the various hostels run by Social Welfare Department. Benefit of this judgment was also directed to be extended to all those who were in service on the date of passing of the aforesaid order. The aforesaid writ petition was filed on 25.7.1994 and since the petitioner was appointed in July, 1993, the judgment is applicable to his case also. Appeal preferred by the State Government against the aforesaid judgment dated 26.5.1995 being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.595/1995 was also dismissed. Hon'ble Supreme Court gave direction to the State Government for regularization of the services of the members of the petitioner association as per the scheme submitted by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶35

(3 of 4)

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner provided copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.21173/1994, decided on 29.3.1996. According to the said order, there will be 316 employees for consideration in the first phase who have completed five years of service. There will be 459 part time workers who have not completed five years. After determination of seniority according to length of service 152 employees who have completed two years but else than five years will be regularized in second phase, the rest 307 persons will be regularized in third phase. The process of preparation of seniority list will be completed by 30th April, 1996 and thereafter the process of regularization will start. The process of regularization in the first phase will be completed upto 15th August, 1993 and order shall be issued by 30.9.1996.

¶37

The respondents in their reply to the writ petition in para no.2 although did not dispute that the case of the petitioner would be covered at least in the group whose services were to be regularized in third phase w.e.f. 1st April, 1998 but in para no.2 of the reply it has been stated that in view of the instructions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the matter of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Screening committee of the Department, Directorate, Jaipur.

¶38

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it hardly needs to be stated that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be binding on all the concerned and therefore there can be no question of any further approval being procured from any authority even the Government.

¶39

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to regularization w.e.f. 1st April, 1998 in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents are directed to make compliance of this judgment within a period of three months from the date of service/receipt of this judgment and should make payment of all consequential benefits to the petitioner together with interest @ 6% per annum.

¶40

There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶41

In light of the aforesaid order, the present petitions are allowed in the same terms. The petitioners are held entitled to

¶42

(4 of 4)

¶43

regularization, with effect from the date of commencement of their respective phase, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mod Singh (SLP(C) No.21173/1994, decided on 29.03.1996) . The respondents are directed to make compliance of this judgment within a period of three months from the date of service/receipt of this judgment and should make payment of all consequential benefits to the petitioners together with interest @ 6% per annum.

¶44

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶45

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶46

185, 188, 189 Zeeshan

Hukala v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukala v. State of Rajasthan

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

Ranveer Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ram Niwas Bishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Harendra @ Heera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhula Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Himmat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan