Partly allowed

Principal of Chief Conservator and Ors. v. Satyapal and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2025SAW/782/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division bench appeal against a Single Judge's direction to reinstate a daily wage workman who had worked about two years before leaving in 1989. Relying on Amit Kumar Dubey (SC), the court held that after such a long gap reinstatement was not proper and substituted compensation of ₹3,00,000 with 9% interest for delay, partly allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of ₹3,00,000 to the respondent-workman in lieu of reinstatement, payable within three months, with 9% per annum interest on delay; Labour Court and Single Judge orders modified.

Principal of Chief Conservator and Ors. Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:31331-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 782/2018

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.305/2002

¶6

Principal Of Chief Conservator, Forest Department, Forest Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶7

Assistant Forest Settlement Officer Non-Plan Forest Department, Jaipur And Sikar.

¶8

Deputy Conservator Of Forest East Zone, Forest Department, Jaipur

¶9

Deputy Conservator Of Forest West Zone Forest Department, Jaipur.

¶10

----Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. Satyapal S/o Shri Ramanug Bhardwaj, R/o A-16, Omshiv Colony, Near Railway Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur. (Since Deceased).

¶13

1/1 Suman Bhardwaj w/o Late Shri Satyapal aged about 47 years, resident of 31, OM Shiv Colony, Near Railway Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶14

1/2 Rahul Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Satyapal aged about 27 years, resident of 31, Om Shiv Colony, Near Railway Phatak, Jhotwara Jaipur.

¶15

Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vardhan Joshi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order

¶19

12/08/2025

¶20

This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents-petitioners was allowed and the appellants were directed to reinstate the respondent-workman in service.

¶21

Admittedly, the respondent-writ petitioner was engaged by the appellant-State as daily wager and he had worked continuously for a period of approximately two years.

¶22

[SAW-782/2018]

¶23

[2025:RJ-JP:31331-DB]

¶24

(2 of 4)

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the respondent- writ petitioner had voluntarily left his job in the year 1989, and after such a long lapse of time, a direction for reinstatement is neither justified nor warranted.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- writ petitioner opposed the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.

¶27

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr. , Civil Appeal arising from SLP (Civil) No(s).20902/2024 decided on 29.01.2025 wherein Para No.9 it has been held as under:-

¶28

“9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the matters, we deem it fit to enhance the compensation granted to the appellants by the High Court. We hold that the appellants would be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per year for the period they have worked and in case, they have worked for a part of the year, then the amount of compensation is to be calculated at the same rate to be applied on a pro-rata basis. The following table represents the period of service rendered by each of the appellant and accordingly, the amount of compensation each of them shall be entitled to in terms of the above directions:-

¶29

Diary No. Appellant’s Name	Month joining	of Month of commencement of regular service	Month of termination	Period of service	Amount of compensation
34425/24 Amit Kumar Dubey	May,2008	August,2008	June,2011	3Years 2 Months	Rs. 4,75,000

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[2025:RJ-JP:31331-DB]

¶32

[SAW-782/2018]

¶33

34400/24	Anil choudhary	Kumar	June ,2009	November, 2009	March,2011	1 year 10 month	s Rs.2,75,000
34401/24	Prakash pre	mi	December, 2006	March, 2007	June, 2011	4 years months	7 Rs. 6,87,500
34420/24	Balram ahir	war	July,2008	October,2008	June,2011	3years	Rs. 4,50,000
34720/24	Amar singh	thakur	July,2008	October,2008	June,2011	3years	Rs. 4,50,000
24986/20 24	Devendra shukla	kumar	January,200 4	April,2004	July ,2011	7 years months	7 Rs. 11,37,500
34404/20 24	Abhishek chouksey		April, 2008	July, 2008	June, 2011	3 years, months	3 Rs. 4,87,500
34419/20 24	Sunil mishra	kumar	March,2008	May, 2008	June, 2011	3 years months	4 Rs. 5,00,000
34412/20 24	Deepchand	ra rohit	April, 2008	May,2008	June, 2011	3 years months	3 Rs. 4,87,500
34721/20 24	Nilesh pandey	kumar	February, 2008	April,2008	June, 2011	3 years, months	5 Rs. 5,12,500

¶34

Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent of enhancement of compensation as directed above which is to be paid within three months from today. Further, any payment made to the appellant(s) under Section 17B of the ID Act shall be set off while calculating the final amount to be paid. Additionally, the respondent shall be at liberty to consider the re-engagement of the appellant(s) in view of the provisions contained in Section 25H of the ID Act.”

¶35

The learned Single Judge, in paragraph no. 2 of the impugned judgment, recorded a finding that the workman had worked continuously for about two years. However, in our considered view, after such a long gap, directing reinstatement at this stage is not just and proper. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the appellants to pay a sum of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the respondent- writ petitioner toward full and final settlement of his claims in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits.

¶36

The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent-writ petitioner within a period of three months from today. In the event of failure to make the payment within the stipulated time, the

¶37

[SAW-782/2018]

¶38

[2025:RJ-JP:31331-DB]

¶39

(4 of 4)

¶40

respondent-writ petitioner shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment.

¶41

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the orders passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge stand modified accordingly.

¶42

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶43

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶44

MG/43

Principal of Chief Conservator and Ors. v. Satyapal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal of Chief Conservator and Ors. v. Satyapal and Anr.

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Ramesh Chand Harijan Son of Shri Chitarlal Harijan

Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University Vs Dr. Priyanka Joshi D/O Shri Prem Chand Joshi

Zila Parishad Jhalawar Vs Mushtaq Khan

Mahesh Agarwal Son of Shri Shanti Lal Agarwal, Vs the Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement

L K Sharma, S/O Shri B.N. Sharma Vs the Governor

Shri Hari Kishan Meena S/O Shri Mahadev Meena Vs Union of India