Narayan Lal Gameti vs State Of Raj. & Anr on 5 September, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narayan Lal Gameti vs State Of Raj. & Anr on 5 September, 2017

1. The appellants before us were appointed on temporary basis, with wages to be paid on daily rate, as class IV employees by the State of Rajasthan, Commercial Taxes Department on different dates in the year 1986. The services were continued as daily rated employees. Having worked for about 10 years they filed writ petitions pleading that since they were appointed against vacant posts after inviting applications from the Employment Exchange and that at best the appointments would be irregular and not illegal they prayed that their services should be (3 of 4) [ SAW-806/2014] regularized.

2. The writ petitions were disposed of in the year 2005 with a direction to consider regularization of service of the appellants.

3. The decision by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case came to be rendered soon thereafter. In para 53 of the decision the Supreme Court drew a distinction between illegal and irregular appointments. Irregular appointments were liable to be made regular.

4. Thus in the aforesaid backdrop of the facts and law, the grievance of the appellants needs to be considered. They were regularized as class IV employees under different orders passed in the year 2005 but were denied the benefit of past services. This impact is placement at the appropriate time stage in the scale of pay and pensionable service rendered.

5. In the writ petitions filed by the appellants in the year 2012 they claimed parity with Lower Divisional Clerks who were likewise appointed irregularly but were later on regularized in service from the date of initial appointment for conferring service benefits.

6. By the decision dated 23.1.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9224/2012 Govind Ram Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. the learned Single Judge has not looked into the plea of discrimination i.e. class IV employees not being given benefit of regularization from the date of initial appointment but class III employees such as L.D.C. given the said benefit.

(4 of 4) [ SAW-806/2014]

7. Learned Single Judge has simply held that in view of the decision in Uma Devi's case prayer for regularization from the initial date of appointment cannot granted.

8. The decision in Govind Ram Mali's case has been subsequently followed by the learned Single Judge in the orders which are impugned in the writ appeals filed by other appellants.

9. From the reply filed to the writ petitions, we find that the respondents have not justified as to why L.D.Cs. were conferred benefit of regularization from retrospective date and not Class IV employees.

10. We dispose of the appeals setting aside the impugned orders in the appeals whereby writ petitions were filed by the appellants have been dismissed. We restore the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge granting an opportunity to the respondents to file supplementary counter affidavits in which the respondent would plead facts qua appellants plea of discrimination

11. The writ petitions which are restored would be listed for directions before the learned Single Judge on 23rd October, 2017. (RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Babulal/37 to 40, 47 & 48 & C/1

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur