[2025:RJ-JP:43860-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 536/2023 1. The H.C.M. Rajasthan State Institute Of Public Administration, Through Its Director, Jaipur. 2. The Additional Director, O.T.S. Jaipur. 3. The Assistant Director (Admin), O.T.S., Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Siraj Hussain S/o Shri Mohd Ibrahim, Aged about 56 years R/o Bandha Basti, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by Ms. Ritika Naruka, Adv. Mr. Priyam Agarwal, Adv Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aslam Khan, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 01/11/2025 1. Appellants have preferred the present special appeal writ seeking quashing of order dated 15.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that while the directions issued by the learned Single Judge regularizing the services of the respondent-writ petitioner from the date similarly situated person Khem Singh was regularized may not be required to be interfered with, however, the consequential directions issued to give all benefits as provided to similarly situated person Khem Singh required to be interfered with by this Court. He also submits [2025:RJ-JP:43860-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-536/2023] that while person Khem Singh has been regularized way back in the year 1991, the respondent-writ petitioner had been reinstated in the year 2010, after judgment passed by the learned Labour Court was ultimately finalized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP. Thus, he had not actually worked from the date his services were terminated i.e. from 1986 till 2010. He, therefore, further submits that even the learned Labour Court while passing the award did not grant any back wages to the respondent-writ petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion for granting all consequential benefits similar to person Khem Singh by the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly submits that the consequential benefits must be given to him only from the date of award. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties. 5. While the respondent-writ petitioner is entitled to be granted the regularization status from the date his junior person Khem Singh was so granted and no interference to that extent needs to be made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the State that consequential benefits similar as to Khem Singh, could not have been granted to the respondent-writ petitioner. 6. Considering that the award was passed in the year 2001 which was actually implemented in the year 2010, the respondent- writ petitioner would have to be treated as regularized from the year 1991 however he would be given notional benefits from 2001 upto 2010. Learned labour Court has treated him as a part time [2025:RJ-JP:43860-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-536/2023] employee and salary benefits were not given to him, therefore, he would only be entitled to 50% of the actual salary which he would draw from 2001 to 2010 but all actual salary after fixation of pay from time to time shall be payable with effect from the date he joined and arrears shall be calculated accordingly and released from the date he joined including the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service. His retiral benefits shall also be calculated by giving him all other benefits as available in law and shall be released as on the date when he retired in the year 2019. The pension and other retiral benefits as available, shall also be released to him, in accordance with law. No interest shall however be paid on the arrears except on the arrears of pension @ 6 %. 7. Keeping in view the above, the present Special Appeal Writ stands disposed of. 8. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ HEENA/ANU/18