- (1.) I .A. No.26029, dated 02.09.2011: Heard Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, the learned Additional Government Counsel for the applicants/appellants and Mr. Prahlad Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THE interim application is one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2011, rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5465/2005. By the decision impugned, the learned Single Judge had required the applicants -State to consider the case of the respondent herein for regularization of her services, in terms of sub -rule 4 of Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Class -IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules').
(3.) FOR the order proposed to be passed in the accompanying appeal, the delay in filing the same is hereby condoned, on a consideration of the averments made in the interim application. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, accordingly, allowed. Facts in brief, necessary to be noticed, are that according to the respondent herein, she was appointed as a Cook by the Principal, Agriculture Extension Training Centre, Durgapura, Jaipur on 01.08.1989 on daily wage basis and that her services were terminated on 31.07.1990, illegally. She having raised an industrial dispute, the learned Labour Court No.1, Jaipur decided the reference with regard thereto by its Award dated 22.10.1999, holding her termination to be bad in law and directed her reinstatement. Her wages were ordered to be paid on and from 22.01.1994. According to the respondent, though in terms of the Award, she was reinstated but she was continued to be treated in employment on daily wage basis and her services were not regularized. She averred further that initially though her services, as a cook, were utilized, later she was made to work as a class -IV employee. Contending that denial of her claim for regularization of service, though she had been rendering the same continuously for a period of 15 years, was in violation of her fundamental rights, as envisaged under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as her constitutional right under Article 39(d), she invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.;