CWP 2994/09 1 In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ** Civil Writ Petition No. 2994/09 Gopal Vs. The State & ors. Date of Order ::: 14/10/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. DC Gupta, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that one Shri Ram Phool, appointed on 01/06/1987, was junior to him in the work charge cadre and the petitioner is entitled for all benefits which were made admissible to a person as alleged to be junior under the Work Charge Service Rules, 1964. It appears from record that the petitioner's services were dispensed with while he was working as Beldar which was assailed by him through a reference made by the appropriate Government which came before this Court in CWP-2441/2002 decided on 22/02/2007 wherein it was observed that while the respondents had complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at the same time, violated Section 25-H of the Act and consequently, directed the respondents to re-employ the petitioner within two months from the date of the order. The petitioner, in compliance of the judgment of this Court, has been re-employed by the respondents vide order dated 12/03/2008 and CWP 2994/09 2 he is presently serving with the respondents under the work charge cadre. However after serving legal notice for demand of justice, when the benefits, alleged to have been extended to junior person Mr. Ram Phool, were not granted to him, he has approached this Court through the instant petition. Counsel submits that Ram Phool indisputably was junior to him and once the petitioner has been re-employed under the orders of this Court, he is entitled for all benefits which are admissible to his alleged junior Mr. Ram Phool while serving in the work charge cadre. In the opinion of this Court, the submission is without any substance for the reason that the petitioner has not been reinstated in service but at the same time on account of the act of the respondents being in violation of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947, he has been re-employed under the orders of this Court on 12/03/2008 and on being re-employed in service in the work charge cadre, he cannot claim parity with his alleged junior who is in service under the work charge cadre appointed in 1998. Consequently, I find no substance in the instant petition and it is accordingly dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Raghu/2994-CW-2009-final.doc CWP 2994/09 3