Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shrimati Vishakha Devi vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 19 January, 2016
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.2003/2007 Shrimati Vishakha Devi versus State of Rajasthan & anr 19.1.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr RC Joshi for petitioner None for respondents BY THE COURT:
Vide order dated 6.1.2016, parties were directed to come prepared for final hearing of the case yet none is present on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel submits that petitioner is working with the non-petitioners for last more than 30 years but she has not been regularised in services. At one point of time, even petitioner's services were terminated but on a dispute raised before the Labour Court, an order of reinstatement with continuity of service was passed. The said award has already attained finality thus, by virtue of the award, petitioner continued in service. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors versus Umadevi(3) & ors, (2006) 4 SCC 1, an employee completed 10 years of service, is entitled for consideration of his/her case for regularisation. The non-petitioners made consideration of the case of the petitioner but declined regularisation holding that she is not eligible for it though the petitioner is in possession of the required qualifications, rather, post held by him is lowest post. Accordingly, proper exercise was not undertaken, that too, when a specific direction was given in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7367/1993 followed by a contempt petition.
I have considered the submissions and perused the record and find that petitioner is in second round of litigation. The first writ petition was decided by an elaborate judgment dealing with the objection of the non-petitioners which includes that petitioner is a part time employee but the objection raised by the non-petitioner was not accepted and the fact aforesaid goes in favour of the petitioner. It is also a fact that at one point of time petitioner was terminated from service and on a challenge to the order before the Labour Court, a direction for reinstatement with continuity of service was passed and the said award has attained finality. The petitioner is virtually working for more than 30 years but her services have not been regularised.
The denial cannot be made on the pretext taken by the non-petitioner either on the ground of non-availability of post or by treating her to be as part time employee. If the post was not available, how an employee can be continued in service for 30 years. Further, how payment of salary is made to her without a post and even salary was also enhanced from time to time to keep at part with the minimum wages.
Looking to all these reasons and as none is there to oppose the writ petition and the reply filed by the non-petitioner is quite sketchy, I find ground to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Non-petitioners are directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularisation of her services which would not be denied treating her to be part time employee or due to non-availability of the post. The regularisation would be made after considering her case in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). The consequential order of regularisation would be passed after completion of exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in judgment/ order have been incorporated in judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW