STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned State Counsel vehemently contended before us that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is untenable in law firstly, because the learned Single Judge has not correctly applied the principle laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in directing regularization of services of the respondent. The second submission of learned counsel for State is that the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999 (in short 'Rules of 1999') were amended vide notification dtd. 27/2/2009 and amendment was made in existing Rule 6, which provided for consideration of eligible daily wage employees for regularization in service. The amendment of Rule 6, as provided in sub Rule (4) thereof, shows that persons who were irregularly appointed on any duly sanctioned posts and completed 10 years of service on 10/4/2006, without intervention of any Court or Tribunal and continuously working as such on the date of commencement of the amendment made vide notification dtd. 27/2/2009, alone were entitled to be considered for regularization by the duly constituted Committee. The respondent was appointed in the year 1980, however, later on, his services were terminated in the year 1982. Though an award in his favour was passed on 9/6/2005, undisputedly he was reinstated only on 9/6/2006. Therefore, it is contended, the writ petitioner could not be said to have completed 10 years of service as on 10/4/2006 because on that day, he was not even in service. As such, the legal position was not correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and impugned order has been passed, which warrants interference. The third and the last submission of learned State Counsel is that reinstatement was under a judicial order therefore, even if it is treated to be a case of deemed continuance in service, it is only on judicial intervention and not a case of continuance in service without there being a judicial order therefore, for that reason also, the claim of regularization by respondent was liable to be rejected.

(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, defending the order of learned Single Judge passed in his favour, would submit that the respondent was reinstated in service under a judicial order, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference particularly when many other persons similarly situated were not only continued but also regularized in service.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and also the pleadings and documents of respective parties.