1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6291/2005 (Mahendra Singh Vs. J.N.V.U. & Ors.) Date of order : 16.5.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy. Govt. Counsel. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondent University to implement the judgment and award dated 14.11.1991 in its true spirit and the petitioner may be reinstated as ordered by Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur. Further, it is prayed that the respondent University may be directed to regularize the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. 2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 1.6.1983 at the rate of Rs.9/- per month and he worked upto 18.2.1986. Thereafter, his services were terminated. Against the said order, an industrial dispute was raised and ultimately an award was passed in favour of the petitioner on 14.11.1991. Against the said award, a writ petition was preferred by the respondent University before this Court, which was registered as SBCWP No.2778/1994. The learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said writ petition filed by J.N.V.U. vide order dated 25.8.2004. Meaning thereby, the award passed by Judge, Labour Court attained finality, therefore, the respondent University is under obligation to comply with the directions issued by Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur but till today, the award passed by Judge, Labour Court has not been complied with although the writ petition filed by the University against the said award has been dismissed by learned Single Judge on 25.8.2004. Therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 and as per award, he was granted benefit of continuity of service, therefore, obviously, the respondents are under obligation to treat the petitioner in service since 1983. Therefore, it is contended that the 3 petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has gave specific directions to Union of India, State Governments and other instrumentalities to take steps to regularize as a one-time measure the services of such irregularly appointed employees who have continuously worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned post. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have perused the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court. Para 53 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where 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 regularisation of the services of such 4 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 regularise 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 six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner is required to be treated in service since 1983 and he is also entitled for considering his candidature for regularization of his service on the post of LDC because number of persons were provided appointment on the post of LDC after retrenchment of the petitioner in the year 1986 but later on after 5 adjudication of the industrial dispute on 14.11.1991 by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur, the petitioner became entitled for continuance of service and the writ petition against the award filed by University has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.8.2004. Therefore, the respondents are under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of directions issued in Uma Devi's case (supra) so also upon the fact that so many persons were provided appointment after 1983 and were regularized on their respective posts. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to implement the award passed by Judge, Labour Court and to pass order after due consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for regularization of his services within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun