Village and Post Saipura, Dhani Tibara, District- Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan through The Secretary Public Health

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan through The Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jal Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. Superintending Engineer PHED, City Circle, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

4. Executive Engineer PHED, City Circle, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Manoj Pareek For Respondent(s) : Ms. Minakshi Jain, G.C. with Ms. Supriya Rana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/05/2025

1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking direction against the respondent to grant him full salary for the period from

16.04.2001 to 31.08.2005 and has further prayed for modifying order dated 04.06.2010 to the extent of granting actual monetary benefits instead of notional benefits.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially engaged on

08.03.1983 as Beldar, however, as he was subjected to retrenchment, he raised industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court answered the reference in favour of petitioner- [2025:RJ-JP:19560] (2 of 5) [CW-9675/2013] workman and while declaring his termination as illegal directions were given to reinstate the petitioner along with 25% back wages vide award dated 16.04.2001.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to aforesaid award, he marked his attendance in the office of respondents on 25.09.2001 but was not allowed to join. He also submits that instead of making compliance of the award, respondents chose to challenge the award before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3946/2002, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2003.

5. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, even thereafter, compliance of award was not made by the respondents and they preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1162/2003 before the Division Bench of this Court, which too was dismissed on

10.04.2006.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that thereafter an order was passed for reinstating the petitioner w.e.f. 27.10.2005 pursuant to award dated 16.04.2001 and vide order dated 04.06.2010, he was assigned Semi Permanent Status w.e.f. 08.03.1985. Accordingly, his pay was fixed at Rs.350 in the pay scale of 350-4-450 w.e.f. 08.03.1985, however, it was mentioned in the order that the petitioner shall be entitled only for notional fixation of pay w.e.f. 08.03.1985 i.e. the date of assigning him Semi Permanent Status to the date of reinstatement and actual monetary benefits shall be admissible only from the date of joining pursuant to award dated 16.04.2001.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is not the case where the petitioner has not wilfully joined despite there [2025:RJ-JP:19560] (3 of 5) [CW-9675/2013] being an award in his favour, therefore, once finding has been arrived at by learned Labour Court and directions for reinstatement were given in his favour, at least from the date of reporting to join pursuant to award, he was entitled for actual monetary benefits. However, instead of doing so the respondents have erroneously granted him notional benefits, which is causing him grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the respondents were aggrieved by the directions given in award dated 16.04.2001, therefore, they were pursuing the remedies available to them in law by way of filing Writ Petition and thereafter Special Appeal (Writ).

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that immediately after dismissal of Special Appeal (Writ), order dated

04.06.2010 has been passed in order to allow reinstatement to the petitioner and to grant benefits as mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 04.06.2010.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that after termination since the petitioner has not actually worked till joining on 27.10.2005, therefore, he has got no right to claim actual monetary benefits for the intervening period and hence the respondents have rightly granted him notional benefits.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn indulgence of this Court towards reply to the writ petition in which it has been mentioned that they have calculated the back wages @ 25% pursuant to award dated 16.04.2001 and as such the outstanding back wages w.e.f. 22.08.1984 to 31.08.2005 have been paid to the petitioner on 05.10.2005 to the tune of [2025:RJ-JP:19560] (4 of 5) [CW-9675/2013] Rs.53,639/- and as such they have satisfied the directions given by learned Labour Court in award dated 16.04.2001. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissing the Writ Petition.

12. I have examined the record of the Writ Petition and have also carefully heard rival contentions put forward by the learned counsel for both the parties.

13. It is an admitted fact that vide award dated 16.04.2001 directions for reinstatement were given in favour of the petitioner and as informed by learned counsel for the petitioner, such award was never stayed by this Court or even by the Division Bench during the Writ Petition or Special Appeal preferred by the respondents against award dated 16.04.2001.

14. Under such circumstances, no reasonable cause has been placed on record by the respondents for not making compliance of award dated 16.04.2001. More so, when the petitioner himself submitted his joining application on 25.09.2001 in the office of the respondents.

15. Thus, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be denied benefit of actual monetary benefits on the pretext that he had not actually worked with the Department from the date of award till his joining pursuant to reinstatement order. Such pleas raised by the respondents are totally unjustified and unreasonable.

16. No doubt that the respondent-Government was well within its rights to pursue the legal remedies against the award dated

04.06.2010. However, the time taken during such proceedings, more particularly when there was no stay in favour of the [2025:RJ-JP:19560] (5 of 5) [CW-9675/2013] respondents, cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate benefits, otherwise admissible to the petitioners pursuant to award dated

16.04.2001. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner himself was avoiding joining pursuant to award, hence, under these circumstances where the respondents themselves not allowed joining of the petitioner pursuant to award dated

16.04.2001, he is held entitled for actual monetary benefits at least from the date of submitting joining report i.e. 25.09.2001.

17. So far as, granting payment of wages only @ 25% after the date of award is concerned, it is sufficient to hold that the respondents have totally misinterpreted and misconstrued the award dated 16.04.2001. The directions for payment of 25% was only with regard to back wages, which means the period from date of termination till date of award. After the date of award it cannot be said that the petitioner was entitled for payment @ 25% from the date of award to his date of joining i.e. 27.10.2005.

18. It is held that the petitioner was also entitled for 100% wages from the date of award to his date of joining i.e. 27.10.2005.

19. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed.

20. In view of the directions mentioned herein above, necessary compliance be made by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. DAKSH/128 (ANAND SHARMA),J