SBCWP No.6415/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6415/2007. Smt.Kalyani Vs. Raj.State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Date of order : August 21, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vigyan Shah for the petitioner. Shri V.P. Mathur for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Smt.Kalyani with the prayer that respondents be directed to regularise her services on the post of Class-IV in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 from the date of her initial appointment with interest @ 18% p.a. Petitioner was initially appointed with the respondents on daily wage basis sometime in January 1983. Her services were illegally terminated on 1/2/1996. On her insistence, industrial dispute was raised and referred to the Labour Court, Jaipur. Labour Court vide its award dated 31/1/2001 held the termination of the petitioner illegal and directed her reinstatement with continuity in service but without back wages. Respondent-Corporation challenged the aforesaid by filing writ petition being SBCWP No.5787/2001 which was dismissed vide SBCWP No.6415/07. 2 judgment of this court dated 27/9/2003. While petitioner was reinstated in service on 13/12/2002, on daily wage basis at Rs.60/- per day, respondents preferred appeal before the Division Bench being DBSAW No.1111/2002 against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Bench. Appeal was dismissed on 21/11/2006. Petitioner was said to have transferred from the Headquarter to to the Resident Engineer, Unit II, Jaipur on 21/12/2002. Petitioner has cited examples of Kailash Chand Jain and Rakesh Kumar, whose writ petitions were allowed who according to the petitioner were appointed in the year 1994 and in that case also, their services were terminated and ultimately termination was held illegal by award of the labour coourt and they were reinstated in service. Respondents on their own granted regular pay scale from the date of reinstatement whereas, petitioner has been discriminated by not granting daily wages. Similar orders were passed on 28/4/1998 in the case of Madan Lal Gurjar, 25/5/2005 in the case of Kailash Chand Sen and 22/3/2005 in the case of Radhey Shyam. Learned counsel for petitioner also cited judgment of this court in the similar circumstances in SBCWP No.6266/05 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. RSRTC Jaipur) decided on 27/1/2009 wherein Rakesh Kumar was directed to be reinstated in service pursuant to the award of the labour court and when SBCWP No.6415/07. 3 reinstated he was not granted the same benefits as given to Kailash Chand. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner was merely engaged on daily wage basis and therefore she has rightly been reinstated on the same terms and conditions. It is denied that there was any discrimination on the part of the respondents. In view of the discussion made above, I find that controversy raised in the present petition is exactly similar to the one involved in Rakesh Kumar and the other judgments rendered by this court in the cases of Madan Lal Gurjar and Radhey Shyam and therefore petition deserves to be allowed. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant similar benefit to the petitioner from the date of reinstatement. Petitioner would be entitled to only notional benefits for the intervening period and for subsequent period, she would be entitled to actual benefits. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil