P.K.LOHRA, J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Class-IV and grant him regular pay-scale of the same w.e.f. 16.06.1997 when he completed ten years services with all consequential benefits and interest on arrears of salary @ 18% p.a."
(2.) In the petition, it is, inter-alia, averred that at the threshold, petitioner was appointed as Naka Guard with Municipal Board, Makrana w.e.f. 01.06.1986 and while in service, he was retrenched by order dated 17.06.1987. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of retrenchment, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which ultimately culminated into a reference to learned Labour Court, Jodhpur. The learned Labour Court, by its award dated 10.03.2003, answered the reference in favour of petitioner and against the respondent-employer. The learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner in service of the respondent-Municipal Board with continuity of service and also awarded 30% back wages. Pursuant to the award, on efforts being made by the petitioner, he was reinstated in service w.e.f. 21.01.2004 but the 30% back wages for the interregnum period, i.e. from 10.02.1997 to 20.01.2004, was not paid to him. Finally, the Municipal Board paid the said amount. It is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that he is continuing since 01.06.1986 except for the interruption of his services because of the illegal retrenchment. So far as the retrenchment part is concerned, that has been taken care by the learned Labour Court and the petitioner has been reinstated in service with continuity of services. In view thereof, there remains no quarrel that petitioner is continuing in employment of the Municipal Board since 01.06.1986 and by highlighting the longevity of the services the petitioner has craved that requisite direction be issued to the respondent-Municipal Board for regularisation of his services. Admittedly, since 1986, almost three decades have been passed and as such, the petitioner has earned a genuine claim for regularisation of his services. Apex Court, in case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC 1] has considered the just afflictions of the employees continuing in employment for years together and recognised their right to seek regularisation if they have completed a particular duration of service. While appreciating the afflictions of such employees, Apex Court has observed as under:- "53.One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa, And B.N. Nagarajan, and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitment's are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
(3.) The respondents, in their reply, have very candidly admitted that claim for regularisation of the services laid by the petitioner is a genuine one, and it is further pleaded that as per notification issued by Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan dated 27.01.2011, making amendment in the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964, the amended rule 10 envisages that if an incumbent has been appointed irregularly on a duly sanctioned post on 10.04.2006 without intervention of any Court his case can be considered for regularisation by adjudging his suitability by the Screening Committee. The notification dated 27.01.2011 reads as under:- "Notification In exercise of powers conferred under section 337 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (Act No. 18 of 2009), the State Government hereby makes following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964, namely:- 1. Short title and commencement:-(1) These rules may be called the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2011 (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. Amendment of rule 10 - In rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 after the existing proviso, the following new provisos shall be added, namely:- "Provided further that the persons, irregularly appointed on duly sanctioned posts and completed ten years service on 10.04.2006 without intervention of any court and continously working as such on the date of commencement of these amendment rules, shall be screened by a committee consisting of- (i) Chairperson of the Municipality Chairperson (ii) Deputy Director (Regional)- Member (iii) Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipality - Member Secretary Provided they were eligible for appointment, as per rules on the date of their initial irregular appointment and vacancy is available at the time of screening. The Appointment Authority shall issue appointment order of the person, who is adjudged suitable by the Screening Committee and appointment shall be effective from the date of issue of such appointment order. Provided also that the inter se seniority of the persons screened under above proviso shall be determined on the basis of the their length of such continuous service in the Municipality after their irregular appointment. These persons shall rank junior to the persons appointed regularly before the commencement of these amendment rules By order of Governor sd/- (Ramniwas Meena) Deputy Secretary" ;