RAM KUMAR MEGHWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 1/10/1991 on the post of Cook-cum-Class IV against a vacant post. He continued in service up to 1/5/1993 and thereafter, by order dtd. 6/5/1993, his engagement was extended up to 31/3/1994. However, with effect from 1/4/1994, his services came to be terminated. 3.1. Aggrieved by the said termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Bikaner. The learned Labour Court, Bikaner, vide its judgment and award dtd. 29/10/2004, allowed the claim petition and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. In pursuance of the said award, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dtd. 19/6/2006 and he joined duties on 1/7/2006. 3.2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that once continuity of service has been granted and his services are liable to be counted from the initial date of appointment, i.e. 1/10/1991, he is entitled to the consequential benefits. It has also been pleaded in the writ petition that though the petitioner was appointed by the respondent-Department and has been discharging duties with it since 1/10/1991, his remuneration is being disbursed through a placement agency and being aggrieved thereof, petitioner prefers this writ petition.

(3.) Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cook-cum-Class IV Employee against a vacant post and continued his services thereafter and in the meantime, service of the petitioner was terminated and by way of the award passed by the Labour Court at Bikaner, petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dtd. 19/6/2006. He submits that since 2006, petitioner is working regularly with the respondents, however, has not been regularized till date. He submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the order dtd. 23/3/2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in SBCWP No.1030/2013 : "Parmeshwar Lal v. The Director Social Justice and Empowerment Department and Anr."; wherein, the Coordinate Bench allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order and directed respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of the service. He, thus, submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the order dtd. 23/3/2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Parmeshwar Lal (supra).