Om Prakash Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—This matter came up for orders on an application seeking interim directions, however, with the consent of parties this petition for writ itself is heard finally.

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner while in service of the Municipal Board, Jalore was retrenched from service on 31.8.1988 and validity of that was assailed by the petitioner by way of availing remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The industrial dispute relating to retrenchment of the petitioner was referred to the Labour Court, Jodhpur by the appropriate government under a notification dated 12.1.1993. The Labour Court after adjudicating the dispute answered the reference by the award dated 1.5.1996. The Labour Court declared retrenchment of the petitioner illegal and, therefore, set aside the same. The petitioner was declared entitled for reinstatement in service with back wages from the date of reference made by the appropriate government. As a consequent to the award dated 1.5.1996 the petitioner was reinstated and a conscious decision was taken by the Government of Rajasthan to screen the petitioner to regularise him in service.

The screening committee consisting of four members viz. the Additional Collector, Jalore; Deputy Commissioner (Regional), Department of Local Self Government; Chairman, Municipal Board, Jalore and the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jalore was accordingly constituted. The committee on screening recommended for regularisation of the petitioner in service. The petitioner, in the meantime, also claimed for grant of annual grade increments but the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jalore instead of granting the same, passed an order dated 3.2.2007 terminating the petitioner from service. The order aforesaid is challenged in this petition for writ.

The contention of the petitioner is that the order impugned dated 3.2.2007 is highly unjust and arbitrary as the petitioner is in service of the respondent Board from last about 19 years and despite availability of vacancy he has been terminated from service. It is also urged that after a conscious decision to regularise the petitioner in service there was no occasion to retrench the workman afresh. In reply, it is stated that in view of the law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , no order of regularisation in service could have been passed, therefore, under the instructions of the Government of Rajasthan the petitioner was retrenched from service.

Heard counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in service of the respondents from last 19 years and a conscious decision was taken by the Government of Rajasthan to regularise his service, if found suitable on screening. A competent committee, therefore, was constituted and after screening that found the petitioner suitable to be retained in service.

Accordingly, a recommendation was made to regularise the services of the petitioner. The Municipal Board, Jalore not only continued the petitioner for 19 years in service but also acted upon the instructions given by the Government of Rajasthan to regularise him in service by conducting a screening. The only reason given by the respondents to discontinue the petitioner from service is that the State Government in light of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) instructed not to regularise services of the petitioner and further to discontinue him from service. In the case of Umadevi (supra) while deprecating regularisation of irregular appointments Hon''ble Supreme Court clarified that the regularisation, if any already made but not subjudice, need not be reopened. In the present case a conscious decision was taken by the Government of Rajasthan to regularise the petitioner in service after getting him screened. On such screening the petitioner was found suitable and a recommendation was made for regularisation of his service. The respondents, therefore, should have regularised the petitioner in service instead of discontinuing him by the order impugned. There was no need of reopening case of the petitioner in view of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) as entire exercise relating to petitioner''s regularisation in service was already concluded. The order terminating the petitioner from service, therefore, is apparently bad.

The petition for writ, for the reasons stated above, deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 3.2.2007, passed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Jalore is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and further for regularisation of service as per the recommendations made by the screening committee.

No order to costs.