TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as sweeper by the respondent-department on daily wages on 2/4/2080. The services of the petitioner were retrenched on 26/5/1982, aggrieved against which he preferred an appeal before the labour Court. Vide award dtd. 9/6/2005, the labour Court directed for his reinstatement and also allowed an amount of Rs.2,500.00 as compensation to him. In pursuance to the award of the labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated on 9/6/2006 again on daily wages i.e. on the same status.

(2.) Meanwhile, as the persons junior to the petitioner were regularized and were accorded the permanent status, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13650/2012. The writ petition of the petitioner was allowed vide order dtd. 5/2/2014 and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors. v. Uma Devi and ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, so also as per the amendment made in Rules vide notification dtd. 27/2/2009 issued by the Government. By the order, it was specifically observed that if the petitioner is found entitled for regularization, then the benefit of regularization and pay-scale would be granted to him from the date the same was granted to his junior with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The department preferred an appeal against the said order dtd. 5/2/2014 which was dismissed vide order dtd. 29/1/2016. Even after the dismissal of the Special Appeal of the State, the petitioner was not granted the benefit of regularization. He filed representation before the authorities but the same was rejected vide order dtd. 24/5/2016 on the ground that the notification of the Government provided to the effect that the employees who had completed 10 years of service on 10/4/2006 would be regularized whereas, the petitioner had even entered into the service on 9/6/2006. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization and therefore, his representation was rejected. Against the rejection of the representation, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.