Dinesh and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and having perused the material placed on record we find no reason to consider interference in the order dated 09.07.2012 as passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 6785/2012. The petitioners-appellants filed the said writ petition with the following prayers: -

(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioners and regularized them on the post of Sweeper with all consequential benefits.

(ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to give the preference to the petitioners for appointment on the post of sweeper in pursuance of the advertisement (Ann. 8).

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

The learned Single Judge declined the said prayers and dismissed the writ petition after noticing the facts that the petitioners were in service earlier and their services were terminated; and upon their raising industrial dispute, the matter was referred to the Labour Court where ultimately, the award was made on 17.01.2011 in the manner that the employer was directed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the appellants as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The award so made by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur was attempted to be questioned by the petitioners before this Court in CWP No. 3056/2011. The said writ petition was considered and dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.11.2011. However, the learned Single Judge in the last made an observation that dismissal of the petition would not otherwise be of impediment for the respondents to consider regularization of the petitioners in terms of the process initiated by them.

Thereafter, the petitioners filed the writ petition leading to this appeal with reference to the facts that the respondents had taken up the process of recruitment to the post of Safai Karamchari without regularizing them. The learned Single Judge has found the claim as made by the petitioners totally bereft of substance with the observations that when the petitioners-appellants are not in service, the question of regularization would not arise at all because regularization could be made in relation to the person who is continuing in service.

The learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submits that as per the observations made in the earlier order dated 25.11.2011, the case of the petitioners-appellants ought to have been considered for regularization, particularly when the posts are vacant.

We find the submissions not making out any case for interference. It remains indisputable that the petitioners are not in service, rather their services were terminated way back in the year 2000. Upon their raising the dispute, ultimately, the award as made by the Labour Court was of granting compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to each of them in lieu of reinstatement. Such an award was found not calling for interference and was affirmed by this Court. The observations as made by the learned Single Judge while affirming the award in question, with respect, could not have invested the petitioners with any right to claim regularization, particularly when they were not in service nor were ordered to be reinstated in service.

It is noticed that in the writ petition leading to this appeal, the petitioners-appellants were conscious of their position and hence, in the first place prayed for the direction for reinstatement and then, for regularization. Obviously, the relief of reinstatement could not have been granted for such a matter having already been concluded in the earlier petition. When the question of reinstatement does not arise, the relief of regularization is not available even remotely. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.