MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition with the prayer that action of the respondents in not granitng him regular pay scale of the post of Class -IV w.e.f. 17/1/1990 and not regularising his services from that date, be declared arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and that the respondents be directed to grant him regular pay scale and regularisation with effect from 19/11/1990 with all consequential benefits.
(2.) RESPONDENT -Udyog Bhawan Common Facility Jaipur is an organization created by the public sector establishments, offices of which are housed in Udyog Bhawan : Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (R.I.I.C.O.), Rajasthan Financial Corporation (R.F.C.), Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (RAJ. S.I.C.O.), Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (R.S.M.D.C.) and Industry Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner claims that he was appointed with the respondents on the post of Messenger on 23/4/1987 and was thereafter illegally removed on 22/4/1988. An industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court Jaipur at his instance and the same was answered vide its award dated 20/7/1994 holding termination of the services of the petitioner as illegal and entitled him to reinstatement with full back wages with continuity of service. The respondents challenged the aforesaid award before this Court by filing S.B.C.W.P. No. 5296/94 which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 13/3/2001 in which award to the extent of reinstatement and continuity with service was upheld but backwages were reduded to 50%. Aggrieved thereby, respondents filed D.B.S.A.W. No. 230/01 which was also dismissed with costs by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 10/11/2005. Still not satisfied, respondents filed Special Leave to Petition before Supreme Court which was also dismissed. Thereafter, respondents vide order dated 11/5/2006 reinstated the petitioner which was modified by another order dated 29/7/2006 to say that petitioner would have continunity in service for the intervening period. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner made number of representations to the respondents after his reinstatement that he should be given similar treatment as given to Shri Gopal Prasad Sharma, Shri Babulal Meena, Shri Tej Singh and Shri Ravindra Prasad Sharma who were earlier appointed with the petitioner on the same terms and conditions. These employees were granted regular pay scale of pay of the post of Class -IV by the respondents vide order dated 27/8/1991 with effect from 17/1/1990. Since at that time, petitioner was out of employment due to his illegal termination vide order dated 23/4/1988, he could not receive those benefits and now when the petitioner has been reinsatated vide order dated 11/5/2006 with continuity due to the award of the labour court, which matter was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondents upto the Supreme Court, the respondents were required to give him similar benefit to the petitioner as given to other similarly situated persons. It was contended that the labour court in para 8 of its award dated 20/7/1994 took note of the fact that regular pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated persons and, therefore, the direction contained in the award for reinstatement with consequential benefits should imply reinstatement in regular pay scale with all benefits attached thereto. It was contended that the post of Messenger is a Class -IV post in the pay scale of 750 -940 and when all other persons, who were also appointed on consolidated basis with the petitioner, have been granted regular pay scale, petitioner should also be granted the same benefits. Though persons junior to petitioner are receiving regular pay but the respondents are paying him salary in the consolidated pay. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that result of reinstatement of petitioner with continuity in service would be that he would be deemed to have been continued in services of the respondents since the date of his initial appointment on 23/4/1987 and in this manner he completed more than 21 years in services of the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of Supreme Court in UPSEB v. Poonam Chandra Pandey and Ors. 2007(7) Supreme 374 and argued that Supreme Court in that case after considering the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi : (2006)IILLJ722SC , held that when similarly situated persons were regularised, petitioner could not be discriminated and the benefit of decision of the Electricity Board permitting regularisation of employees working from before 4/5/1990 would be available to the petitioner in that case. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgments of this Court in Babulal Saini v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Ors. S.B.C.W.P. No. 366/1990 decided on 19/11/1990, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. Rampal Singh RLR 2006(1) 173, Sualal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2006(2) RDD 1156 (Raj.), Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2007(3) CDR 2361 (Raj.), State of Karnataka and Ors. v. C. Lalitha : (2006)IILLJ93SC and Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B.C.W.P. No. 4090/1993 decided on 15/3/2007.;