SAW/736/2022 of SMT. KAUSHALIYA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI MADAN LAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 9 July 2026

Order

09/07/2026 By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed as under:- “Heard and considered the arguments raised by the parties. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on daily wages on muster roll on 01.06.1984 and his services were terminated by the respondents vide order dated

(2 of 3) [SAW-736/2022] 01.06.1990. Thereafter, the deceased workman knocked the doors of the labour court by way of filing of reference and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.03.1999 by which the termination order of the workman was quashed and set aside with continuity in service. It is also not in dispute that the said order of the labour court was challenged by the State respondents by way of filing of SBCWP No. 3852/1999 before this court and the writ petition was partly allowed on 25.11.2013 by modifying the order passed by the labour court. But unfortunately, the workman expired during the pendency of said writ petition in the year 2009, hence, this court directed the respondents to make the payment of 50% of back-wages with reinstatement in service till 01.11.2009. For whatever reason the reinstatement of the deceased workman was not done by the respondents, now after a lapse of 12 years no such direction can be issued to the respondents to declare the status of the deceased workman as semipermanent/permanent employee under the provisions of the Rules of 1964. The petition suffers from delay and laches. If at all, the deceased employee was aggrieved by the action of respondents for not declaring him as semi-permanent/permanent employee, he could have availed the remedies available to him under the law. No such relief can be granted after such a period at this stage and more particularly in those circumstances when the deceased workman has expired on 01.11.2009. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. Stay application and all pending applications also stand disposed of.

(3 of 3) [SAW-736/2022] We have gone through material available on record. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the workman himself was negligent in not filing any claim for declaring him as semi-permanent/permanent after passing of the award in the year 1999 and during pendency of the earlier S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3852/1999, no application was filed for declaring him as semi- permanent/permanent, therefore, in our considered view, no case is made out for interference by this Court. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh/25