1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5524/2007 Om Prakash Devda vs Raj. Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur & Ors. DATE OF ORDER:8.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr.Vimal Mathur, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed on 1st Oct., 1990 and his services were terminated on 1st March, 1994. The petitioner raised the industrial dispute upon which the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Jodhpur upon which the Labour Case No.111/1996 was registered. The labour court awarded in favour of the petitioner-applicant vide award dated 30th Nov., 2000 and held that the removal of the petitioner from services from 1st March, 1994 was illegal and same was set aside and petitioner was directed to be taken in service with all consequential benefits. So far as services are concerned, a specific direction was that the petitioner shall be treated as continuous. However, the petitioner was awarded 50% of the back wages. The respondents, thereafter, challenged the award of the labour court dated 30th Nov., 2000 by preferring the writ petition 2 being SBCWP No.619/2001, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2002. Thereafter, the respondents also preferred D.B. Special appeal and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 8.8.2003. Then the petitioner was reinstated in service, but by order dated 13th March, 2007 it has been directed that petitioner will be entitled of benefit of completion of 2 years service from 20th June, 2005 and not from the date of initial appointment. The petitioner approached the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, who rejected the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 1st June, 2007 merely on the ground that since the petitioner obtained the order from the labour court, therefore, for all consequential reliefs, the petitioner should approach the labour court and not the appellate tribunal, hence, this writ petition. The petitioner has already been reinstated in service in pursuance of the order passed by the labour court dated 30th Nov., 2000 and said award has attained finality. As per the said award, the petitioner's services are required to be treated to be continuous. So far as award of other consequential benefits for declaring him semi-permanent after completion of 2 years and, thereafter, permanent after completion of 10 years are concerned, there is no controversy now and the services for this purpose is required to be taken into account from the date of initial appointment. The respondents have committed illegality 3 by holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits treating his services to be from the subsequent date then his date of initial appointment. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The order passed by the respondents dated 13.3.2007 (Annex.6) is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for all benefits from the date of his initial appointment and not from any subsequent date within a period of three months from the date of placing of copy of this judgment, which may be placed by the petitioner before the respondents. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-