Satya Narayan Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain-II, J.—Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Driver with effect from 8th October, 1982 and/or further to pay minimum of the regular pay scale of the post of Driver.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages on the post of Driver way back on 8th October, 1982 by selection committee. His services were terminated, on 5th August, 1985. The petitioner challenged his termination order before the Labour Court, Bharatpur. Labour Court, Bharatpur, vide its award dated 17th February, 1994 declared the termination order of the petitioner dated 5th August, 1985 as illegal and unreasonable and directed to re-instate the petitioner with full back wages and all consequential benefits. Thereafter, award passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur was challenged by the state by way of writ petition, but writ petition, filed by the State, was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in the service, in pursuance of award passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that one Driver namely, Gopal Lal Sharma was granted voluntarily retirement with effect from 30th November, 2000 and against his vacant post, the petitioner was posted vide order dated 30th November, 2000 (Annexure-5), therefore, there was vacant post and the petitioner was posted against that vacant post. He submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Driver since 1982, i.e. for last about 30 years. The petitioner was neither paid minimum of the regular pay scale of the Driver, nor his services were regularized, therefore, he has filed the present writ petition, seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus against the respondents for regularization of his services.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are vacant posts available and even other wise, the petitioner is working on the post of Driver for last more than 30 years, therefore, services of the petitioner are liable to be regularized and he is entitled for regular pay scale of the post of Driver.

Mr. M.F. Baig, learned Deputy Government counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that after the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , the State Government has amended all the service rules and it has now been provided in the statutory rules that in case any employee has completed ten years of services without any interim order of any Court as on 10th April, 2006, then he/she is entitled for consideration of his/her case for regularization on his/her post. He referred Notification No. F. 5 (2) DOP/A-II/2008 dated 27th February, 2009, issued by Department of Personnel and submitted that in the light of Notification dated 27th February, 2009, the respondents will consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

From Annexure-1, order dated 8th October, 1982, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages on the post of Driver by selection committee. This order was passed before 30 years and from this order, it is clear that the petitioner is working on the post of Driver for last 30 years, so far as termination of services of the petitioner in the year 1985 is concerned, the same has already been set aside by the Labour Court, Bharatpur and thereafter, he was reinstated with all consequential benefits and with continuity of service. It is also clear that the petitioner is working against vacant post. Learned Deputy Government counsel also fairly conceded that in view of the amended rules, the case of the petitioner will be considered for regularization on the post of Driver by the respondents, as the petitioner had completed about 19 years of service before filing present writ petition in the year 2001. Since learned Deputy Government counsel has assured that case of the petitioner will be considered for regularization by the respondents, therefore, there is no need to discuss the matter any more.

Consequently, writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Driver in accordance with law at the earliest, but not later than a period of three months, as prayed by learned Deputy Government counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.