Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahaveer Prasad Pareek vs Yashpal Singh on 1 October, 2018
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Writ Contempt No. 324/2016
Mahaveer Prasad Pareek S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal Pareek, Aged
about 59 years, resident of Ward No.14, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
Yashpal Singh, Director Incharge, Central State Farm, Suratgarh,
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.L. Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mahish Shishodia.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 01/10/2018
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner alleges non-compliance of the order dated 4.1.2016 passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special (Writ) No.1113/2014.
3. The petitioner was claiming regularisation of his service in the writ petition filed by him. The respondent took the stand that as per the policy of regularisation, the petitioner's case for regularisation would be considered when his seniority position would entitle him to be considered for regularisation.
4. The Division Bench held that the petitioner's entitlement for regularisation has to be considered in light of law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported at (2006) 4 SCC 1, Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors.
(2 of 2) [WCP-324/2016]
5. The grievance in the contempt petition is to the order dated 15.3.2016.
6. The order dated 15.3.2016 records that the petitioner's engagement initially as a daily paid worker was never against a sanctioned vacant post. The engagement was on account of seasonal requirement of manpower.
7. The respondent is the Central State Farms, Suratgarh.
8. Suffice it to state in Umadevi's case, the Supreme Court held that daily wagers who were in employment as on 10.4.2006 and had worked for 10 years as daily wagers against sanctioned post would be entitled to be considered for regularisation, if the initial appointment was irregular.
9. Only such persons were entitled to be considered for regularisation whose appointment as daily wagers was against the sanctioned vacant post. The order dated 15.3.2016 categorically records that the petitioner's appointment as daily wager was not against a vacant post.
10. Thus, no case is made out to hold the respondent guilty of contempt.
11. The contempt petition is dismissed. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ. S.Phophaliya/-4 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)