BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) In the petition, it is, inter-alia, averred that at the threshold, petitioner was appointed as Naka Guard with Municipal Board, Makrana w.e.f. 01.06.1986 and while in service, he was retrenched by order dated 17.06.1987. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of retrenchment, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which ultimately culminated into a reference to learned Labour Court, Jodhpur. The learned Labour Court, by its award dated 10.03.2003, answered the reference in favour of petitioner and against the respondent-employer. The learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner in service of the respondent-Municipal Board with continuity of service and also awarded 30% back wages. Pursuant to the award, on efforts being made by the petitioner, he was reinstated in service w.e.f. 21.01.2004 but the 30% back wages for the interregnum period, i.e. from 10.02.1997 to 20.01.2004, was not paid to him. Finally, the Municipal Board paid the said amount. It is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that he is continuing since 01.06.1986 except for the interruption of his services because of the illegal retrenchment. So far as the retrenchment part is concerned, that has been taken care by the learned Labour Court and the petitioner has been reinstated in service with continuity of services. In view thereof, there remains no quarrel that petitioner is continuing in employment of the Municipal Board since 01.06.1986 and by highlighting the longevity of the services the petitioner has craved that requisite direction be issued to the respondent-Municipal Board for regularisation of his services. Admittedly, since 1986, almost three decades have been passed and as such, the petitioner has earned a genuine claim for regularisation of his services. Apex Court, in case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC 1] has considered the just afflictions of the employees continuing in employment for years together and recognised their right to seek regularisation if they have completed a particular duration of service. While appreciating the afflictions of such employees, Apex Court has observed as under:-

(3.) The respondents, in their reply, have very candidly admitted that claim for regularisation of the services laid by the petitioner is a genuine one, and it is further pleaded that as per notification issued by Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan dated 27.01.2011, making amendment in the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964, the amended rule 10 envisages that if an incumbent has been appointed irregularly on a duly sanctioned post on 10.04.2006 without intervention of any Court his case can be considered for regularisation by adjudging his suitability by the Screening Committee. The notification dated 27.01.2011 reads as under:-