Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jai Narayan Meena vs State (Animal Husbandry )Ors on 8 April, 2013
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20278/2012 (Suleman Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5173/2012 (Roshan Lal Vashistha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20291/2012 (Jai Narayan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20455/2012 (Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20654/2012 (Anil Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20661/2012 (Mahendra Pareek & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20692/2012 (Sumer Chand Parashar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20852/2012 (Rajendra Kumar Sain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.105/2013 (Man Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.518/2013 (Laxmi Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1628/2013 (Naveen Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20513/2012 (Krishna Nand Morwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20828/2012 (Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 08th April, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma ] Mr.Tanveer Ahmed ] Mr.Govind Gupta ], for the petitioner/s. Mr.Hari Bareth, Addl.GC. BY THE COURT:
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are heard and decided finally.
It is a case where petitioners were engaged pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1996. As per the terms of appointment, it was for a period of six months on contract basis extendable by further period of six months. The appointment orders of the petitioners were accordingly issued from time to time. In few cases, it was in the year 1996 and in other cases, subsequent to it. The petitioners are discharging their duties on the post of Syees since then thereby they are working with the respondents for more than a period of ten years. A prayer is now made to direct the respondents to consider their cases for regularization.
A reference of para No.53 of the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has been given to show that even while deprecating continuance of temporary employees, para No.53 deals with those who have already completed ten years of service. The State of Rajasthan issued a Notification to consider the case of those who have completed ten years' of service but a cut off date of 10.04.1996 has been given ignoring the fact that even after the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and Notification, petitioners and other similarly placed employees have been continued in service and by now, they have completed more than 15 to 17 years of service.
A further reference of judgment of Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Captain Murari Bahadrra in DB Civil Special Appeal No.2684/2011 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.278/1999 decided on 08th August, 2012 has been given. Therein, a direction for consideration of case for regularization was given by the learned Single Judge and has been upheld by the Division Bench after considering the fact that petitioner/s therein had completed 16 years of service. A reference of Notification issued by the Government prescribing cut off date on 10.04.2006 to complete 10 years of service was also taken note of. Accordingly, the writ petitions may be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent/s opposed the prayer aforesaid and submit that most of the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, thus they are not entitled for regularization, hence, the writ petitions be dismissed summarily. If any amendment is made in the Notification to give different cut off date for completion of ten years of service, the case of petitioners would be considered accordingly.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.
It is not in dispute that appointment of the petitioners is pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 1996. The appointment in few cases was given in the year 1996 and in other cases, in the year 1997-98, however, all the petitioners have already completed ten years of service, which has not been disputed. It is without intervention of the Court. It is also not in dispute that petitioners are working against sanctioned post and their appointments are alleged to be by the process required for regular appointees but advertisement is for contractual appointment, thus petitioners' appointment cannot be considered to be regular, hence, their case is covered by para No.53 of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Para No.53 of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
53.One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa,R.N. Nanjundappa, B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
In view of direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted above, the State Government issued Notification to amend the rules for consideration of the case for regularization of those who have completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. It is after ignoring the fact that even subsequent to the aforesaid date, many persons have been continued in service in same manner and a period of more than 7 years is going to pass in this month itself, thus their cases cannot be ignored in the light of the in para No.53 of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The issue aforesaid has already been considered by the Division Bench in case of Murari Badharra (supra), hence, in my opinion, when the petitioners' appointment are not illegal and is otherwise against sanctioned post, then required to be considered for regularization.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, the petitioners' service may not be discontinued to frustrate their cause unless there are serious complaint followed by an enquiry.
The respondent/s would be at liberty to utilize services of the petitioners as per their requirement but it will not frustrate their claim for regularization and benefits arising out of it.
This disposes of the stay applications also.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.