1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.946/2002 Prahalad Singh vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 22.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.J.S. Bhaleria, for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Bhansali,for the respondent no.3 Mr.SN Tiwari Dy. GA, for the respondent no.1 <><><> This writ petition is finally disposed of in view of the fact that petitioner was initially appointed on 15th Nov., 1988 on the post of Chowkiwar as daily wages worker with daily wage @ Rs.14/- per day. The petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent no.3 on 31st July, 1989. This termination was challenged by raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947). The learned labour court declared the termination of petitioner's services as illegal vide order dated 15th July, 1999 and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and the learned labour court also awarded 50% of the back wages. The award was challenged by preferring writ petition by the employer before this Court, which was dismissed on 21st July, 2000. The employer preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal against the judgment of this Court dated 21st July, 2000 which was dismissed 2 on 4.1.2001 by the Division Bench of this Court. Not satisfied, the employer preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 4.1.2001, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21st Sept., 2001. The petitioner was reinstated in service on 6th June, 2001 as Chowkidar. The petitioner yet is getting daily wages @ Rs.60/- per day. According to the petitioner, one Lal Singh was appointed as the petitioner was appointed. The Lal Singh's appointment was subsequent to the petitioner. He was also getting Rs. 14/- per day in the year 1988. His services were also terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Then termination was challenged by the said Lal Singh and in that case also, the termination was set aside by the learned labour court on 12th Nov., 1991 and Lal Singh was taken back in the service. It is submitted that the said Lal Singh's services have already been regularized and all the service benefits have been given to him, but in the case of the petitioner despite recommendation of the Mandi Samiti, the appropriate orders have not been passed for relaxing certain conditions so as to give benefit of regularization of services of the petitioner, hence, this writ petition has been 3 preferred by the petitioner. In the reply filed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Piligangan it is clearly stated that Mandi Samiti already sent letter on 2nd July, 2004 seeking relaxation in age and relaxation in calling the name from the employment exchange so that petitioner's services may be regularized. A reminder was sent to the concerned authority by the Mandi Samiti on 24th June, 2005. The another letter was sent to the competent authority on 5th March, 2005 and according to the Mandi Samiti, the matter is under consideration. Since it is not in dispute that similarly situated person has been given benefit of regularization of service and there is no reason for not giving this benefit to the petitioner and particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been taken back in service as his termination was found to be illegal, therefore, the respondents have no right to take the Begar from the petitioner by paying mere amount of Rs.60/- per day in a matter where the petitioner is in service since the year 1988 and almost 20 years about to pass. The respondents also have no right to sit over any recommendation seeking relaxation of conditions, which the competent authority can grant. 4 In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- which would be paid by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner with the direction to the respondent no.1 to pass appropriate order of regularization as demanded by the respondent no.3 and give consequential benefits of regularization etc to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-