1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8806/2004. : : Tulsi Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 28.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to grant regular pay scale of Class IV employee and regularise his service w.e.f. 15.8.1996 at par with similarly situated persons. 3. Shri Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the Social Welfare Hostel, Jhalrapatan. She was initially appointed on 1.7.1986 as part time Cook. However, respondents arbitrarily terminated her services by order dated 19.9.1992. An industrial dispute was raised which was 2 later referred to Labour Court. Learned Labour Court vide award dated 14.10.1998 held the termination order as illegal and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages with continuity in service. The respondent- State challenged the aforesaid award by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.1473/99, which was dismissed vide judgment of this Court dated 20.4.1999 and, thereafter, filed DB Civil Special Appeal No.683/99, which was also dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.9.2001. Award of the Labour Court thus attained finality. It was submitted that even though the award was passed by the Labour Court on 14.10.1998, the respondents reinstated the petitioner only after specific order was passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that Supreme Court in bunch of Special Leave to Appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan by its judgment dated 29.3.1995 approved the scheme for regularization and grant of regular pay scale to the Cooks and Chowkidar working in the various hostels of Social Welfare Department. Learned counsel produced copy of the aforesaid judgment in Special Leave to Appeal No.21173/94 : State of Rajasthan Vs. Mod Singh and argued that Supreme Court in that case directed for grant of regular pay scale to such of part time employees who has 3 completed five years on 1st May, 1995 for whom it was directed that they will be given appointment and regularisation of pay scale of Class-IV employees from 15.8.1996. Second Phase was of those who have less than five years of experience on 1st May, 1995 but had completed two years of service. For them it was directed that they may be regularised from 1.4.1997 and third phase was of those who were although working in 1st May, 1995, but had not completed five years and for them it was directed that they may be regularised from 1.4.1998. It was argued that although the Supreme Court in the aforesaid order has mentioned total number of persons failing in each category but name of the petitioner was not sent in the list of Supreme Court only because the petitioner was at that time out of employment due to his illegal termination. Pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner was again reinstated since the Labour Court has also directed to continue to the petitioner. The petitioner has in this manner completed nine years on 1st May, 1995 much more than five years for inclusion in the first phase. The respondents however till date are paying to the petitioner part time emoluments i.e. Rs.1898/-. Learned counsel submitted that on the question of parity also the petitioner is entitled to the 4 same relief because all others who had completed five years in the first phase were granted regular pay scale and regularisation from 15.8.1996. 4. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that there can be now no direction for regularisation of the petitioner and for granting her regularisation because of judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi : 2006 (4) SCC, 1. Learned counsel also cited the judgment of Supreme Court in UPSEB Vs. Poonam Chandra Pandey & Ors. : 2007 (7) Supreme, 374 and argued that petitioner was engaged only on part time basis and she is not entitled to regular pay scale. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and argued that the engagement of the petitioner was not on part time basis and in fact the petitioner is a cook for supplying the food of the inmates/students of hostel rendered by the respondents and for discharging her duties she is available in the hostel in morning as well as in the evening. Apart from this, the petitioner has prepared the refreshment etc. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents 5 be directed to provide the same benefits as was given to those part time cooks/chowkidars, who had completed five years of service in May, 1995 as per the scheme approved by the Supreme Court. 6. Although it may be a fact that the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list that was produced before the Supreme Court, but at the same time, it cannot be denied that the petitioner was initially engaged as a part time Cook on 1.4.1986. Had she not been removed by the respondents on 19.9.1992, she would have continued in service till the matter was decided by the Supreme Court. Removal of the petitioner has been held to be illegal by award of Labour Court and the respondents are directed not only to reinstate her but also grant her full back wages and continuity in service. The effect of this would be that the petitioner would be treated in service to have throughout continued as if there was no order of removal. In other words, she would have completed a period of almost nine years on 1st May, 1995 as against five years that would require for being covered by first phase. The judgment of the Supreme Court for this category of part time employees, who were being hitherto make to work in the Government Hostels 6 as Cooks/Chowkidars and yet were being exploited in the sense that they were not even paid minimum emoluments. The scheme that was approved by the Supreme Court for this category of the employees having attained finality and as the case of the petitioner being covered by the first phase, the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief that were granted to those who have been given appointment to Class- IV employees from 15.8.1996. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the same relief to the petitioner as was granted to the part time employees whose case was covered by first phase in the scheme approved by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Mod Singh (supra). The petitioner would also be entitled to be given appointment and regularisation in the regular pay scale of Class-IV from 15.8.1996 with all consequential benefits. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.8.