AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This appeal is barred by limitation having been filed with delay of 110 days. For stated reasons, delay in filing appeal is condoned and application u/s 5 of Limitation Act is accordingly allowed.
We have heard matter on merits.
Shri R.P. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Appellants, has argued that learned Single Judge has erred in law in dismissing writ petition and upholding judgment of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ''Tribunal''). It was argued that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that real controversy in the matter was with regard to computation of service of Respondent-workman rendered by him in District Court with effect from 23.09.1995 to April, 1997. Respondent-workman could not be granted pay protection u/s 26(1) of Rajasthan Service Rules because in that appointment he was working on temporary basis and that he was never confirmed. He was simply on probation at the time of leaving service.
Having heard learned Counsel for Appellants and perused impugned award, we find that learned Labour Court has, while relying on judgments of Apex Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and of this Court in Subhkaran Gaur and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2000 WLC (Raj.) 289, held that Respondent-workman was earlier working with District court and his appointmnet in that court was on regular basis. On his fresh appointment on being selected by RPSC with Appellants he would be entitled to pay protection because of provisions of Rule 26 (1) of the Rules. Such pay protection was rightly granted to him and could not be withdrawn thereafter because no fraud or misrepresentation was played by Respondent-workman. In view of settled proposition of law referred to in judgment of Supreme Court and this Court, relied on by learned Tribunal, we find that learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing writ petition and for same reason therefore, this appeal too is liable to be dismissed and we do accordingly.
Consequent upon dismissal of appeal, stay application, filed therewith, also stands dismissed.