1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1168/2005 Shiv Kumar Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 05.09.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.S.D. Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr.Kamlesh Rawal on behalf of Mr.K.L. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Mr.Sachin Acharya, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that reference was made with regard to illegal termination of petitioner by the appropriate government upon industrial dispute raised by him. The said reference was finally decided by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur vide award dated 30th January, 2003 whereby petitioner was reinstated with 35% back wages. The said 2 award was challenged by the State by way of filing writ petition before this Court and the same was registered as S.B.C.W.P. No.5014/2003 and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 07th April, 2004. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, a special appeal was preferred before the Division Bench that too was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 02nd August, 2004. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court also dismissed the special appeal filed against the said judgment of Single Judge as well as Division Bench. After finalization of the matter, petitioner was reinstated in service. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after reinstatement again there was threat for terminating the services by the respondents, therefore, this writ petition has been filed by petitioner with the prayer that respondents may be directed to provide regular appointment, so also, prayed for back wages as ordered by the Judge, Labour Court. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that petitioner was reinstated in pursuance of award passed by the Judge, Labour 3 Court, therefore, petitioner cannot claim regularization as a matter of right because the order of Judge, Labour Court was only to the extent of reinstatement. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by both learned counsel for the parties. It is obvious from the facts that after final adjudication, petitioner was reinstated in service and he is in service till today. It is also clear from the award that benefit of continuity in service was also granted to petitioner. Meaning thereby, petitioner is required to be treated in service since his initial appointment w.e.f. 17th April,1987. Meaning thereby, petitioner is in service for more than 20 years. Therefore, obviously, petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization in service as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Central Government, State Government and instrumentalities of State should take proper steps to regularize as a one time measure the services of such irregularly appointed employees 4 who are working from last 10-15 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 53 of the aforesaid judgment has passed following order:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases of irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa, R.N.Nanjundappa and B.N.Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within a six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but no sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents may be directed to consider his candidature in accordance with the adjudication made by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). In my opinion, once petitioner was reinstated in service and matter with regard to illegal termination was finally adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then obviously petitioner was required to be treated in service since his initial appointment. Therefore, it is a fit case in which respondents are under an obligation to consider the case of petitioner in accordance with the directions given in Uma Devi's case (supra), so also, petitioner is entitled for regular wages as ordered by the Judge, Labour Court. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization as per the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of submitting certified copy of this order. The respondents shall also take into consideration the fact that one Shri Prakash Chand Surana has already been appointed regularly 6 and case of the petitioner is at par with him. The respondents are further directed that if any wages is yet to be paid to petitioner, then due salary shall be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of filing certified copy of this order as ordered by the Judge, Labour Court, so also, the revised wages which is made applicable from time to time by the State Government. The respondents shall pay salary month by month to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/- A.K. Chouhan/-