- (1.) Facts of the case are that on 26.7.1993 the appellant was appointed as Clerk Cum Typist by the respondents. He filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4784/1996 for his regularization. In the meanwhile, petitioner-appellant's services were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 8.10.1996. Aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30 th July, 2009 on the ground that Rajasthan State Scouts and Guides is not an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved of the aforementioned order, the petitioner-appellant filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 87/2010, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 4.2.2011. Thereafter he raised an industrial dispute and filed a claim case before the Labour Court, but the same was dismissed vide award dated 31.10.2018. He again filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9268/2019 before this Court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 30.8.2019 and the learned Single Judge quashed and set-aside the impugned award dated 31.10.2018 and directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakh to the petitioner in lieu of his reinstatement alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition before the Labour Court. He filed S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 270/2019 before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.2.2020. Hence, this appeal.
(2.) The appellant, who is present in person submits that his remuneration was enhanced twice by the respondents and he continuously discharged his duties for 3 years, 2 months and 14 days till 8.10.1996. He further submits that according to Clause 3 of Chapter III of Rajasthan State Scouts and Guides Employee Service Rules, 1975, an employee is entitled to be regularized on completion of 3 years service. However, contrary to the said provision, he was not regularized by the respondents on the ground of being overage, whereas at the time of appointment, he was not overage. Other similarly situated persons were regularized and/or were granted regular pay scale. He further submits that for severance of service, the appellant was not at fault. The respondents as well as the Courts below have utterly failed to consider the report dated 4.4.2013 submitted by the Assistant State Commissioner under the directions of the State Chief Commissioner. He further submits that once the termination order was held to be unjustified, he was entitled to be reinstated in service.
(3.) In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Anirudh Dwivedi Versus State Chief Commissioner, Bharat Scout and Guide and Another reported in [2009 (2) MPLJ 166] as also the case of Dr. Mumtaz Jahan Khan Versus The Bharat Scouts & Guides and others (Writ Petition No. 6710/2005).;