[2025:RJ-JP:31331-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 782/2018 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.305/2002 1. Principal Of Chief Conservator, Forest Department, Forest Bhawan, Jaipur. 2. Assistant Forest Settlement Officer Non-Plan Forest Department, Jaipur And Sikar. 3. Deputy Conservator Of Forest East Zone, Forest Department, Jaipur 4. Deputy Conservator Of Forest West Zone Forest Department, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. 1/1 1/2 Satyapal S/o Shri Ramanug Bhardwaj, R/o A-16, Omshiv Colony, Near Railway Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur. (Since Deceased). Suman Bhardwaj w/o Late Shri Satyapal aged about 47 years, resident of 31, OM Shiv Colony, Near Railway Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur. Rahul Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Satyapal aged about 27 years, resident of 31, Om Shiv Colony, Near Railway Phatak, Jhotwara Jaipur. 2. Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vardhan Joshi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 12/08/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents-petitioners was allowed and the appellants were directed to reinstate the respondent-workman in service. 2. Admittedly, the respondent-writ petitioner was engaged by the appellant-State as daily wager and he had worked continuously for a period of approximately two years. [2025:RJ-JP:31331-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-782/2018] 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the respondent- writ petitioner had voluntarily left his job in the year 1989, and after such a long lapse of time, a direction for reinstatement is neither justified nor warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- writ petitioner opposed the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal arising from SLP (Civil) No(s).20902/2024 decided on 29.01.2025 wherein Para No.9 it has been held as under:- “9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the matters, we deem it fit to enhance the compensation granted to the appellants by the High Court. We hold that the appellants would be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per year for the period they have worked and in case, they have worked for a part of the year, then the amount of compensation is to be calculated at the same rate to be applied on a pro-rata basis. The following table represents the period of service rendered by each of the appellant and accordingly, the amount of compensation each of them shall be entitled to in terms of the above directions:- Diary No. Appellant’s Name Month of joining Month of commencement of regular service Month of termination Period of service Amount of compensation 34425/24 Amit Kumar Dubey May,2008 August,2008 June,2011 3Years 2 Months Rs. 4,75,000 [2025:RJ-JP:31331-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-782/2018] 34400/24 Anil Kumar choudhary June ,2009 November, 2009 March,2011 1 year 10 months Rs.2,75,000 34401/24 Prakash premi December, 2006 March, 2007 June, 2011 4 years 7 months Rs. 6,87,500 34420/24 Balram ahirwar July,2008 October,2008 June, 2011 3 years Rs. 4,50,000 34720/24 Amar singh thakur July, 2008 October, 2008 June, 2011 3 years Rs. 4,50,000 24986/20 24 Devendra kumar shukla January,200 4 April,2004 July ,2011 7 years 7 months Rs. 11,37,500 34404/20 24 Abhishek chouksey April, 2008 July, 2008 June, 2011 3 years, 3 months Rs. 4,87,500 34419/20 24 Sunil kumar mishra March,2008 May, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 4 months Rs. 5,00,000 34412/20 24 Deepchandra rohit April, 2008 May,2008 June, 2011 3 years 3 months Rs. 4,87,500 34721/20 24 Nilesh kumar pandey February, 2008 April,2008 June, 2011 3 years, 5 months Rs. 5,12,500 10. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent of enhancement of compensation as directed above which is to be paid within three months from today. Further, any payment made to the appellant(s) under Section 17B of the ID Act shall be set off while calculating the final amount to be paid. Additionally, the respondent shall be at liberty to consider the re-engagement of the appellant(s) in view of the provisions contained in Section 25H of the ID Act.” 7. The learned Single Judge, in paragraph no. 2 of the impugned judgment, recorded a finding that the workman had worked continuously for about two years. However, in our considered view, after such a long gap, directing reinstatement at this stage is not just and proper. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the appellants to pay a sum of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the respondent- writ petitioner toward full and final settlement of his claims in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. 8. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent-writ petitioner within a period of three months from today. In the event of failure to make the payment within the stipulated time, the [2025:RJ-JP:31331-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-782/2018] respondent-writ petitioner shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed payment. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the orders passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge stand modified accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/43