Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Jai Kishan Sharma, inter alia, with prayer that order dated 25.04.2012 (Annexure -4) be quashed and set aside and, by issue of mandamus, respondents be directed to regularize his services on the post of Lower Division Clerk in regular pay scale with all consequential benefits from the date his juniors, namely, Shri M.K. Goyal, Shri Purshottam Jadiya and Shri J.P. Sharma, were regularized.
(2.) From the facts averred in memorandum of writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Accounts Assistant against substantive vacant post with effect from 06.04.1987 on consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 500/ -. His services were however terminated by respondents with effect from 31.01.1988. An industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Jaipur, at the instance of petitioner vide notification dated 08.04.1991. Learned Labour Court, vide award dated 29.09.1995 declared termination of petitioner to be illegal, being violative of Ss. 25 -F and 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, and held him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. Aggrieved thereby, respondent - Rajasthan Housing Board (for short, 'respondent Board') filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8/1998, which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 06.04.1999 with costs of Rs. 5000/ -. It was thereafter that respondent Board, by order dated 26.07.1999 reinstated petitioner back in service on consolidated pay of Rs. 500/ - per month, for a period of six months. Petitioner submitted joining report on 26.07.1999. According to petitioner, his initial appointment was made vide order dated 13.04.1987 (Annexure -4), whereas Sarva Shri M.K. Goyal, Purushottam Jadia and J.P. Sharma, were initially appointed vide order dated 17.10.1987 on same conditions, namely, on contract basis on consolidated fixed salary of Rs. 500/ - per month. In their appointment order, it was indicated that their appointment would last up to 31.01.1988 but eventually they were continued in service and services of petitioner were terminated 25.08.1990. While petitioner was out of service, services of aforementioned three persons, who were juniors to him, were regularized vide order dated 24.01.1990 on the post of Lower Division Clerk in pay scale of Rs. 950 -1680.
(3.) After his reinstatement in service in 1999, petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 133/2000 challenging order dated 26.07.1999 reinstating him only at Rs. 500/ - as consolidated monthly salary, rather giving regular pay scale. That writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.01.2006. Petitioner preferred appeal before Division Bench being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 547/2006. The Division Bench of this court, by order dated 04.09.2008, passed strictures against respondent for filing a false reply to ground No. (e) that no junior to petitioner has been regularized and therefore directed them to produce appointment order of said Shri M.K. Goyal and Shri Purshottam. Eventually, however, the Division Bench, vide order dated 12.10.2011, directed respondents to consider his representation for regularization within a period of two months from the date of filing thereof. Respondents, by impugned order dated 25.04.2012, have rejected representation of petitioner without examining argument of discrimination that despite regularization of services of his juniors, services of petitioner have not been regularized. Hence this writ petition.;