Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to count his services from the date of his initial appointment on daily wages basis for the purpose of grant of selection grade.
(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC vide order dated 22.5.82 on daily wages basis, however, his services were brought to an end w.e.f. 10.9.84. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner. The termination of services of petitioner was held illegal by the Labour Court vide award dated 2.8.89 and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. Legality of the award was questioned by the respondents by way of writ petition being no.94/99 before this court. However, during the pendency of the petition, vide order dated 31.8.92,the services of the petitioner were regularised and therefore, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous. The petitioner raised yet another industrial dispute claiming that for the purpose of grant of selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service pursuant to government order dated 25.1.92, his services must be counted from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 22.5.82. After due consideration of the material on record, the Labour Court arrived at the finding that the petitioner was a daily wages employee and he cannot claim wages in the regular pay scale admissible to the post from the date of his initial appointment and his services prior to his regularisation in service, cannot be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Hence, this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in denying the petitioner salary in the regular pay scale admissible to the post of LDC and not counting his services from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 22.5.82 is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the persons similarly situated namely Darshan Singh and Satyaprakash whose services were also regularised alongwith the petitioner vide order dated 31.8.92 have already been extended the benefits of selection grade by counting their services from the date of their initial appointment and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. Learned counsel submitted that a similarly situated person Shri Prahlad Singh has been held entitled for regularisation of his services with consequential benefits vide judgment dated 22.1.08 rendered by a coordinate Bench of this court in S.B.C.Writ Petition No.946/02 and therefore, there is no reason as to why the same benefits should not be extended to the petitioner, a person similarly situated.;