WRIT PETITION 1497 of 2014 on 26 December 2002

Arguments

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1497/2014INS.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.454/2012Heera Lal vs. Mukesh Sharma & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER :

:14[th] May, 2015

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ*******

Shri O.P. Pareek )Shri Kailash Kumawat ) for the petitionerShri D.S. Poonia on behalf of Shri S.K. Gupta,Addl. Advocate General for the respondents.

##

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have in the meeting held bythe Committee on 12.5.2015, taken a decision not toregularise the services of the petitioner. Thereport of the Committee has been produced forperusal of the Court.

This Court cannot accept the decision of theCommittee as this is nothing but an attempt to notonly override the judgement of the Court, but alsodeliberately flouting the order of the Court. TheCommittee has relied on the judgement of SupremeCourt in Uma Devi vs. State of Karnataka‐2006 (4)SCC 1 alleging that petitioner being part timeemployeecouldnotbeconsideredforregularisation. The judgement of Uma Devi, suprawas cited on behalf of the respondents even during the course of arguments in the writ petition,especially with reference to observations made inpara 53 of the judgement that since the petitionerhas been continued in service due to interventionof the Court, he would not be entitled toreinstatement. The said objection was rejected bythis Court taking note of the fact that thepetitioner was initially engaged on daily wagebasis on March, 1986. His services were terminatedon 25.3.1988. The dispute was referred to theLabour Court at his instance. The Labour Court byaward dated 26.12.2002 held his termination illegaland directed his reinstatement with continuity ofservice alongwith 50% back wages. The aforesaidaward has attained finality. When the award was notcomplied with, petitioner approached this Courtfiling the writ petition. This Court vide judgementdated 28.1.2011 required the petitioner to submit arepresentation to CMHO, Jaipur‐I, who was directedto decide the same verifying the fact whetherpetitioner had joined and worked in the respondent‐department and pay arrears of salary within aperiod of one month. This Court while rejecting theargument also observed that the observations ofSupreme Court in para 53 of the judgement of Uma Devi, supra that while computing period of tenyears, the period during which the employee hasbeen continued in service due to the interventionof the Court or interim order passed by the Court,would not be applicable to the case of thepetitioner because his rights have been finallyadjudicated in the award dated 26.12.2002, whichhas attained finality in favour of petitioner.Petitioner has thus to be treated continued inservice of the respondents for last 28 years as perthe Rajasthan Class‐IV Service (Recruitment andother Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2009.The writ petition was allowed with the positivedirection to the respondents to regularise hisservice from the cut off date given in the Rules of2009, however, entitling him to notional benefitsfor the intervening period and granting actualbenefits from the date of order of regularisation.

Compliance of the judgment cannot be made todepend on the recommendation of the Committee setup by the respondents. The answer of therespondents is nothing but deliberate and willfuldisobedience of the order passed by the Court. Eventhen this Court in the interest of justice and onthe request of respondents, is inclined to grant RS/117

one more opportunity to the respondents to makecompliance of the order of this Court. The matterto come up on 22.7.2015. If the respondents do notmake compliance of the order and file thecompliance report before that date, they shallappear personally to explain as to why they may notbe punished for willful disobedience of the orderof this Court.

A copy of this order be sent to therespondents and also to Shri S.K. Gupta, learnedAdditional Advocate General for the needful.

(Mohammad Rafiq),J.

All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order beingemailed. (Ravi Sharma,P.A.)