1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1787/2005
(Raghuveer Singh Vs. JNVU & Ors.)
Date of order : 2.9.2008
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. P.S. Bhati, for the petitioner.
Ms. Kusum Rao, for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner is claiming
regularization on the post of Library Assistant on the
ground that he is working in the respondent University
since 1985 on contract as well as temporary basis.
Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the
case of the petitioner for regularization is required
to be considered by the respondent-University.
Learned counsel for the respondents-
2
University controverted the fact of continuance of
services of the petitioner and submitted that for some
time his services were dis-continued.
In my opinion, whatever facts may be there
but admittedly the petitioner is continuously working
in the respondent-University since 1995 and performing
his duties as Library Assistant. Therefore, it is for
the University to consider the candidature of the
petitioner in light of the directions issued by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra), in
which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that
efforts should be made for regularisation of those
employees who are working from last 10-15 years and
for the same the Union of India, State Government and
instrumentalities of State should take steps to
regularize as a one time measure to regulate the
services. Paras 53 to 55 of the Uma Devi’s judgment
(supra) are as follows :-
“One aspect needs to be clarified.
There may be cases of 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 regularization of the
3
services of such 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
regularize 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 a six months from this date. We also
clarify that regularization, if any already
made, but no sub judice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularizing
or making permanent, those not duly
appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
54. It is also clarified that those
decisions which run counter to the
principle settled in this decision, or in
which directions running counter to what we
have held herein, will stand denuded of
their status as precedents.
55. In cases relating to service in the
commercial taxes department, the High Court
has directed that those engaged on daily
wages, be paid wages equal to the salary
4
and allowances that are being paid to the
regular employees of their cadre in
government service, with effect from the
dates from which they were respectively
appointed. The objection taken was to the
direction for payment from the dates of
engagement. We find that the High Court
had clearly gone wrong in directing that
these employees be paid salary equal to the
salary and allowances that are being paid
to the regular employees of their cadre in
government service, with effect from the
dates from which they were respectively
engaged or appointed. It was not open to
the High Court to impose such an obligation
on the State when the very question before
the High Court in the case was whether
these employees were entitled to have equal
pay for equal work so called and were
entitled to any other benefit. They had
also been engaged in the teeth of
directions not to do so. We are,
therefore, of the view that, at best, the
Division Bench of the High Court should
have directed that wages equal to the
salary that are being paid to regular
employees be paid to these daily wage
employees with effect from the date of its
judgment. Hence, that part of the
direction of the Division Bench is modified
and it is directed that these daily wage
earners be paid wages equal to the salary
at the lowest grade of employees of their
cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in
government service, from the date of the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court. Since, they are only daily wage
earners, there would be no question of
5
other allowances being paid to them. In
view of our conclusion, that Courts are not
expected to issue directions for making
such persons permanent in service, we set
aside that part of the direction of the
High Court directing the Government to
consider their cases for regularization.
We also notice that the High Court has not
adverted to the aspect as to whether it was
regularization or it was giving permanency
that was being directed by the High Court.
In such a situation, the direction in that
regard will stand deleted and the appeals
filed by the State would stand allowed to
that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant
(they are said to be vacant) the State will
take immediate steps for filling those
posts by a regular process of selection.
But when regular recruitment is undertaken,
the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-3612 and
those in the Commercial Taxes Department
similarly situated, will be allowed to
compete, waiving the age restriction
imposed for the recruitment and giving some
weightage for their having been engaged for
work in the Department for a significant
period of time. That would be the extent
of the exercise of power by this Court
under Article 142 of the Constitution to do
justice to them.”.
In this view of the matter while following
the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court, I deem it just and proper to direct the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization on the post of Library Assistant. The
6
respondents are directed to take final decision and
pass appropriate orders with regard to regularizing
the services of the petitioner in accordance with the
aforesaid directions within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
With the aforesaid direction/observation, the
writ petition is disposed of.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.
arun