CW/20861/2012 of RAMESH CHAND AND ORS Vs STATE PANCHYATI RAJ DEP ORS on 21 December 2012

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAI PUR.* * *

S. B. Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on NO. 20861/ 2012

DATE OF ORDER : 21/ 12/ 2012

HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE AJAY RASTOGI

* * *

Mr . Sandeep Saxena, f or pet i t i oner .

Counsel submi t s t hat t he pet i t i oner swor ki ng i n t he cadr e of Cl ass- I V f or suf f i ci entl ong t i me ar e seeki ng r egul ar i zat i on of t hei rser vi ce and submi t s t hat i n one of i dent i cal CWPNo. 3468/ 2011 ( Sat yanar ayan & Or s. Vs. St at e ofRaj ast han & Or s. ) af t er hear i ng par t i es t hesi mi l ar l i ke cont r over sy r ai sed her ei n, came t obe exami ned & deci ded by t he Coor di nat e Benchvi de or der dt . 27. 8. 2012, oper at i ve par t wher eofbei ng r el evant f or t he pr esent pur pose r eads adi nf r a:

“ I t i s a case wher e i ni t i al l ypet i t i oner s wer e appoi nt ed i noct r oisect i on,however ,af t ert hei r absor pt i on, t hey wer e t akeni nPanchayatDepar t mentbutpet i t i oner s ar e not i n possessi onofqual i f i cat i onf ort hei rabsor pt i on on t he post of Vi l l ageLevel Wor ker . Thus, whi l e absor bi ngot her s on t he af or esai d post , t hepet i t i oner s coul d not be gi ven samebenef i t s. Hence, t he pet i t i oner sar e cont i nui ng on consol i dat edf i xed sal ar y. Si mi l ar cont r over sywas consi der ed by t hi s Cour t i n t he case of Nar ayan Nat h & Anr . ( supr a)wher ei n t aki ng not e of t he f actt hat pet i t i oner s ar e wor ki ng wi t ht he r espondent f or l ast many year s,appr opr i at e di r ect i on wer e gi venf orr egul ar i zat i on. Ther egul ar i zat i on can be on t he postf orwhi ch pet i t i oner s ar e i npossessi on of qual i f i cat i on, whi chmay even be f or Cl ass- I V, however ,r egul ar i zat i on cannot be al l owedf r om t he i ni t i aldat e ofappoi nt mentas pr ayed by t hepet i t i oner s. Accor di ngl y, cover i ngt hi s mat t er by t he j udgment i n t hecase ofNar ayan Nat h & Anr .( supr a) ,t her espondent sar edi r ect ed t o consi der t he case ofpet i t i oner s f or r egul ar i zat i on oft hei r ser vi ce i n accor dance t o l aw.

The consi der at i on af or esai d maybe made wi t hi n a per i od of t womont hs f r om t he dat e of r ecei pt ofcopy oft hi s or der .Whi l eunder t aki ng t he exer ci se,t her espondent s woul d t ake not e of t heNot i f i cat i on dat ed 27. 2. 2009 i ssuedby t he St at e Gover nment wher e t hosewho have compl et ed t en year s' ofser vi ce ar e made el i gi bl e f orr egul ar i zat i on subj ect t o scr eeni ng and ot her condi t i on.

Counsel submi t s t hat i n vi ew of t he j udgment( supr a) he may be gr ant ed l i ber t y t o make r epr esent at i on and t he aut hor i t y may be di r ect edt o deci de t he same i n vi ew of t he j udgment( supr a) .

Wi t hout exami ni ng t he cont r over sy anyf ur t her , t hi s Cour t gr ant s l i ber t y t o t hepet i t i oner t o make r epr esent at i on i n t he l i ght ofj udgment ( supr a) and i f such r epr esent at i on i smade, i t i s expect ed f r om t he aut hor i t y t oexami ne and deci de t he same i n vi ew of j udgment( supr a) assi gni ng r easons & deci si on may becommuni cat ed t o t he pet i t i oner who st i l l f eel saggr i eved,wi l lbe atl i ber t y t o avai lappr opr i at e r emedy whi ch t he l aw per mi t s.

Wi t h t hese di r ect i ons/ obser vat i ons, t hepet i t i on st ands di sposed of .

[AJAY RASTOGI], J.

DSR

"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order beingemailed"

Datar SinghP.S.