- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner with prayer that respondents be directed to regularize his services on the post of Junior Engineer.
(2.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was initially appointed on post of Junior Engineer on daily wage basis on 18.07.1992 with respondent Municipal Board, Rajgarh, District Churu. His services were terminated by respondents. He raised an industrial dispute. Learned Labour Court, Bikaner, by award dated 30.10.2001, held termination of petitioner made by respondents on 28.02.1995 as illegal and directed his reinstatement with continuity in service. Even though petitioner has been reinstated in service in compliance of Award dated 30.10.2001, respondents have so far not regularized his services. Learned counsel cited SB judgment of this court in Dara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others - RLW 2005 (1) Raj. 32 and DB judgment in Special Appeal No.6310/2006 (DRJ) - State of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Narain Pal decided on 04.01.2007 along with Special Appeal No.71/2007 (DRJ) - Municipal Board, Bari Sadri and Another Vs. Shiv Narain Pal and Another, to argue that in similar circumstances, Junior Engineers appointed on daily wage basis in Nehru Rojgar Yojna were regularized. It is contended that Government has recently issued a Notification No.5(2)DOP/A II/2008 pt-I, Jaipur, dated 08.07.2009 in compliance of judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others - 2006 (4) SCC 1, directing that all such employees who have continued to work for ten years or more but without intervention of orders of courts or tribunals, shall be regularized. In para 53 of judgment in Umadevi's case (supra), Supreme Court has referred to court order to mean an interim order passed by any court or tribunal. In present case rights of petitioner stood finally crystallized by way of award dated 30.10.2001 in so far as continuity in service is concerned and there is no interim order in present writ petition. The petitioner ought to be therefore regularized in service as per the rule framed by the government. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition and submitted that since petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to Award dated 30.10.2001 and, therefore, in view of direction of Supreme Court in Para 53 of aforesaid judgment in Umadevi's case (supra), this court cannot allow petitioner to continue in service. It is also contended that judgment in Dara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others and judgments in Special Appeal No.6310/2006 (DRJ) - State of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Narain Pal decided along-with Special Appeal No.71/2007 (DRJ) - Municipal Board, Bari Sadri and Another Vs. Shiv Narain Pal and Another(supra), are distinguishable. It is prayed that writ petition be therefore dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record, I find that once the award passed by Labour Court declaring termination of petitioner to be illegal, petitioner shall for all purposes be deemed to have continued in service throughout from date of his initial appointment till date of his termination. Since in present writ petition, there is no interim order of this court, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is continued because of any interim order passed by this court. What Supreme Court in Para 53 of judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra) intended to convey was that if an employee has continued in service under protection of any interim order of any court, such period shall not be considered to count continuous ten years service for regularization. So in present case there was no such interim order passed either by this court or any other court or tribunal. That restriction therefore cannot be applied in petitioner's case. In result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner for regularization as the rules promulgated by Notification No.5(2)DOP/A II/2008 pt-I, Jaipur, dated 08.07.2009 and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them.;