SBCWP NO.3042/02. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3042/2002. Kajor and ors. Versus The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur & Ors. Date of order:- March 13, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ganesh Joshi for the petitioners. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to direct the respodnents to regularise petitioners in their service with all consequential benefits. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners were initially appointed with the respondents on 1/1/1984. Respondents illegally terminated their services on 1/12/1986. An industrial dispute was referred to the labour court for adjudication of the question whether their termination was legal or not. Labour court held the SBCWP NO.3042/02. 2 termination of the petitioners in violation of Section 25F of the Act vide award dated 1/9/1992 and directed his reinstatement with continuity and back wages. This Court in SBCWP No.3819/1993 (State of Rajasthan Vs. The General Secretary Sawaimadhopur District PWD Employees Union Gangapur City and another) partly allowed the writ petition vide order dated 26/2/1998 only to the extent of granting back wages and directed that petitioners and one more workman Chunnilal would be entitled to reinstatement but shall be entitled for wages from the date of award i.e. 1/9/1992 only. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Chunnilal who was earlier granted continuity of service pursuant to the award of the labour court has been regularised in service by the respondents vide order dated 7/4/2005. Learned counsel submitted number of employees who were appointed in 1986 much after the petitioners were also regularised in service on the post of Beldar. Reference was made to the cases of Giriraj Prasad Sharma, Devilal Mali and Chhutanlal Meena. 3) Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that since the petitioners abandoned the job from 1/4/1985, their service came to an end therefore they could not be treated as continue in service. Reinstatement was made 10 years after their date of termination. Subsequently, their services could not be SBCWP NO.3042/02. 3 regularised in view of bar contained in Sections 9 and 11 of the Rajasthan Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999. It was argued that there was no vacancy available for accommodating the petitioner. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the the record, I find that there is no denial to the fact that petitioners were granted continuity of service by the award of the labour court. That part of the award has been upheld by this court while partly allowing the writ petition of the respondents and to the extent of grant of continuity of service, writ petition filed by the respondents was not allowed. The award pertains to the five employees including one Chunnilal whose services were lateron stand regularised in the services of the respondents themselves w.e.f. 1/1/1984 from the date of his initial appointment vide order dated 7/4/2005. Respondents have not denied this fact in reply to para 9 of the writ petition. Bar contained in Sections 9 and 11 has ceased to exist because those provisions were declared ultravires to the Constitution of India by the Division Bench judgment of Bhawani Singh & 17 Anr. Vs. State & Ors. : WLC (Raj.) 2002(3) 728. Petitioners, who have been granted continuity have now completed 25 years of service and they are entitled to same treatment as SBCWP NO.3042/02. 4 was extended to above referred to persons, names of which, are mentioned in para 9 of the writ petition and Chunnilal who like them was also reinstated in service pursuant to the very same award of the labour court. 5) In Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi : AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1, Supreme Court in para 53 of the report, observed that such of the employees who have continued in services with the State for more than ten years, it ought to consider their cases as one time measure for regularization of their services. 6) In the result, this writ petition is allowed in view of law propounded by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhawani Singh supra. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation and if they are found suitable, regularise them w.e.f. 1/1/1984 as per the order passed in the case of Chunnilal. Petitioners however shall be entitled to only notional benefits for the intervening period. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date, its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil