CW 5648/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5648/2006 Rakesh Kumar Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 20/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Govt. Counsel, for respondent-State Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order dt.17/11/2000 (Ann.16) passed by respondents in terms of Award dt.29/03/94 (Ann.5) of Labour Court, Bharatpur. While working in work-charged cadre, as alleged holding post of Typist, services of petitioner were terminated, which was examined by Labour Court Bharatpur and finally while setting aside his termination w.e.f. 01/02/87, he was ordered to reinstated in service alongwith continuity in service and back wages vide Award dt.29/03/94 (Ann.5). It appears that since respondents failed to implement the Award (Ann.5), petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-6579/94; while disposing of it, this Court vide order dt.13/02/98 (Ann.6) directed the respondents to implement the Award within three months – in pursuance whereof, petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dt.17/11/2000 (Ann.16) which CW 5648/06 //2// was not considered to be compliance in true spirit of Award dt.29/03/94 (Ann.5) and as advised, petitioner also filed contempt petition No.430/198, which was dismissed with liberty to seek proper remedy before appropriate forum under law. Hence this petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that as petitioner was working on the post of Typist (English) at the stage when his services were terminated, he was entitled to be reinstated in service on the same post; and the order dt. 17/11/2000 (Ann.16) passed by respondents in compliance of Award dt.29/03/94 (Ann.5) cannot be considered to be in its true spirit, as in fact he is entitled to be reinstated on the post of Typist (English); and the Counsel has tried to convince this Court that there is material on record about availability of vacant post, on which he can be reinstated in service, and it requires interference U/Art.226 of the Constitution. In their reply, respondents have inter- alia averred that petitioner has been reinstated in terms of Award dt.29/03/94 (Ann.5) and so also orders of this Court passed in writ petition and contempt petition (supra); and even if at all he is not satisfied with CW 5648/06 //3// implementation, which according to him was not in true spirit in compliance of the Award, such a dispute can be resolved in appropriate forum and disputed questions cannot be gone into by this Court in its limited jurisdiction. Government Counsel further submits that instant petition is a second round of litigation seeking implementation of the Award, which according to him is not permissible. Submission made by Counsel for petitioner is without any substance for the reason that the Award dt.29/03/94 (Ann.5) has been implemented by respondents and petitioner has been shown to be appointed as Sahayak (for typing purpose) vide order dt.17/11/2000 (Ann.16) and if at all he was entitled to be appointed as Typist in work-charged cadre, that can be resolved only in appropriate proceedings either by raising dispute or in any other remedy under law but this disputed questions cannot be examined by this Court in its limited jurisdiction; and it is relevant to point out that petitioner earlier protested by way of writ petitions for implementation and the present petition is nothing more, again seeking direction for implementation of the Award which according to him is not in true spirit, is not maintainable. Consequently, writ petition fails and and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/5648CW06-20JnDs.doc