Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajendra Swami vs R.S.R.T.C. & Ors on 4 October, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2647/1997 Rajendra Swami versus RSRTC & ors 4.10.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr BL Gupta for petitioner Ms Shruti Dixit, Addl GC for respondents BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, a direction is sought on the respondents for regularisation of services of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment.
It is stated that petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor after due selection. He was terminated from service in the year 1987. On filing a civil suit and decree in favour of the petitioner, he was reinstated in service in the year 1995. However, services of the petitioner have not been regularised even thereafter. The writ petition thereupon was filed in the year 1995 and during pendency of the writ petition, services of the petitioner have been regularised from the year 2004 though it was liable to be regularised from the initial date of appointment. A copy of the circular dated 21.12.1984 has been submitted along with the additional affidavit to indicate that Conductor should not have been kept on daily rated basis, rather, should have been kept on probation. Accordingly, services of the petitioner was liable to be regularised pursuant to the circular aforesaid.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that petitioner was not appointed on regular basis rather he was appointed on daily wages basis. At the relevant time, lot of Conductors were placed under suspension and dismissed from service. To overcome with shortage of staff, ad hoc appointments were made on daily wages basis. Petitioner was terminated from service however he was later on reinstated. After reinstatement, he committed several delinquencies thus was not found fit for regularisation. His case was again considered and benefit of regularisation of services was given in the year 2004 thus petitioner is not entitled for regularisation from the initial date of appointment.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
I find that there is nothing on record to show that initial appointment of the petitioner was as per the procedure provided for regular appointment. A copy of the advertisement or the call letter for selection has not been produced on record to substantiate the argument. Petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis and said appointment was extended from time to time without protest. His services were terminated, however, petitioner was reinstated in view of decree passed by the civil court. Even after reinstatement, petitioner was served with the charge sheets for different delinquencies thus he was regularised in the year 2004.
So far as circular dated 21.12.1984 is concerned, it does not apply to the case of the petitioner as it was issued in the year 1984 for those already working, whereas, petitioner's initial appointment is in the year 1987. Thus circular of the year 1984 is not applicable.
The petitioner has already been regularised in service from the year 2004 and an employee cannot seek regularisation from the initial date of appointment unless his appointment is shown as per provisions of law. In totality of the facts, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed.
However, it will not affect regularisation of services of the petitioner already granted by the Corporation.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J