Kishangarh. vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Panchyat Raj

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Panchyat Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Pisagan, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner

: Mr. Suresh Kashyap Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Aditya Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat Additional Government Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: ::

11.08.2025

18.08.2025

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue orders for making him permanent and to allow him regular pay scale as well as pay fixation as per order dated 30.12.1995.

2. Writ petition reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed as Handpump Mistri by verbal order with effect from

01.08.1995 and continued on the aforesaid post up to

26.03.1997. Thereafter, his services were terminated with effect from 27.03.1997. Against the aforesaid termination, the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:31656] (2 of 6) [CW-9996/2006] raised industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Labour Court’) for adjudication. The Labour Court vide award dated 31.05.2000 set aside the termination of the petitioner and directed for his reinstatement by maintaining continuity in service along with back wages.

3. Award dated 31.05.2000 passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent-department by way of filing writ petition before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated

01.04.2003. Thereafter, the order of learned Single Bench was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent-department in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 855/2003, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 15.09.2003. Despite dismissal of special appeal, when the petitioner was not reinstated, he filed contempt petition. Thereafter, the respondents issued one order dated 26.04.2006 for reinstatement of the petitioner from the date of his joining.

4. The petitioner has stated that instead of granting him benefits from the date of joining pursuant to order dated

26.04.2006, he should have been granted benefits right from the date of his initial appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to one order dated 30.12.1995, whereby, the respondent-department in the light of judgment of this Court in the case of Radheshyam Dhobi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4656/1990 & other matters) and judgment dated

25.08.1995 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of [2025:RJ-JP:31656] (3 of 6) [CW-9996/2006] State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Ratanlal Lal Gohar (SLP(C) No. 409-410/95), issued directions for regularisation of services of Handpump Mistri and had stated that all those Handpump Mistries, who have completed two years or more services, they shall be granted benefit of regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940 with effect from 01.01.1996 and the remaining Handpump Mistries shall be granted such benefit after completing services of two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled for the benefits under the aforesaid order dated 30.12.1995, however, such benefit has not been granted to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and stated that award dated 31.05.2000 passed by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner was ultimately complied with vide order dated 26.04.2006 and the petitioner is not enitled for any better benefit than granted vide order dated

26.04.2006.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that order dated 30.12.1995 (Annexure-5) was further clarified by the Government of Rajasthan by subsequent orders dated 28.02.1996 and 05.06.1997. Learned counsel submits that bare perusal of clarificatory orders would make it clear that since 29.04.1994 there was complete ban on appointment of Handpump Mistri and it has also been made clear that Handpump Mistri, who were illegally deployed during the banning period, could be removed immediately if they had not completed 240 days continuous period. It was further clarified that even if they had completed 240 [2025:RJ-JP:31656] (4 of 6) [CW-9996/2006] days continuous period, their services were liable to be terminated after making compliance of Sections 25F and 25G of the Act of

1947. It was further submitted that order dated 30.12.1995 is applicable only in such cases where deployment of Handpump Mistry was on contractual basis, but in the case of the petitioner, there was no contract between the petitioner and the respondents. Even otherwise, the petitioner was deployed during the banning period, hence, he cannot claim any benefit pursuant to order dated 30.12.1995. Reference of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 has also been given to justify the denial of relief to the petitioner.

8. In rejoinder, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as many as 19 persons junior to the petitioner have been given benefit of permanent status with effect from 01.01.1996 by the respondent-department and information in this regard was obtained by the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which has also been placed on record as Annexure-6.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was working as Handpump Mistri since 01.08.1995. It is also an admitted fact that while holding his earlier termination as illegal vide award dated 31.05.2000, directions for reinstatement along with continuity of service as well as other benefits was given to the respondents which were upheld by this Court vide order [2025:RJ-JP:31656] (5 of 6) [CW-9996/2006] dated 01.04.2003 and even special appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2003.

11. In these circumstances, although the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 26.04.2006, giving him benefit of reinstatement only from the date of joining pursuant to above order, but the same is apparently against the award passed by the Labour Court, subsequently affirmed even up to Division Bench of this Court.

12. In compliance of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Radheshyam Dhobi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra) as also decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Ratanlal Lal Gohar (supra), while order dated 30.12.1995 of the State Government has given clear cut directions for granting pay scale of Rs. 750-940 with effect from 01.01.1996 on completion of two years of services. Statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder that as many as 19 person junior to the petitioner working on the same post in respondent-department have also been granted such benefit of regular pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996, has not been controverted by the respondents.

13. In these circumstances, denying benefit to the petitioner merely by stating that order dated 30.12.1995 issued by Director and Special Government Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatiraj Department has further been clarified vide subsequent orders dated 28.02.1996 and 05.06.1997 is quite inconceivable for the reason that bare perusal of aforesaid two [2025:RJ-JP:31656] (6 of 6) [CW-9996/2006] orders would reveal that they have not diluted the effect of earlier order dated 30.12.1995 and in fact, such orders are simply clarificatory in nature and further procedure regularisation/grant of regular pay scale has been provided by the aforesaid orders. No justification has come forward that as to how despite aforesaid two calrificatory orders dated 28.02.1996 and

05.06.1997, pursuant to earlier order dated 30.12.1995, as many as 19 persons junior to the petitioner have been granted benefit of regular pay scale. Therefore, denying similar benefit to the petitioner would amount to hostile discrimination with the petitioner, which is apparently in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

14. In view of foregoing discussion, it is held that the petitioner is also entitled for regular pay scale of the post of Handpump Mistri with effect from 01.01.1996 in the same manner in which such benefit has been granted to other 19 persons junior to the petitioner whose names have been mentioned in Annexure-

15. Accordingly, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1996 and to grant him consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. MANOJ NARWANI / (ANAND SHARMA),J