[2026:RJ-JP:4102] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5019/2018 Radhey Shyam Sain son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Sain, aged about 53 years, resident of village Hingoniya, District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Sarpanch/Secretary, Gram Panchayat Hingoniya, Panchayat Samiti Arain, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) 2. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Arain, village Hingoniya, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal with Ms. Priyanka Paliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena and Mr. Tushar Dhankar for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 29/01/2026 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- “In view of the above cogent facts, law and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, humble prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and may be further be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and by way of appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby, quash and set aside the impugned award dated 18.04.2017 passed by learned Labour Court, Ajmer qua awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement of petitioner and petitioner be taken back in service along with all consequential benefits; and may pass any other order(s) which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [2026:RJ-JP:4102] (2 of 5) [CW-5019/2018] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in January 2001 on fixed monthly remuneration and his services were terminated on 01.02.2010. He further submits that the dispute was raised without any delay and Labour Court has declared termination order as unfair and illegal but instead of reinstatement has directed compensation of ₹1,00,000/- which is very meager amount. He further submits that the petitioner was terminated in year 2010 and compensation was awarded in year 2017. Thus there was no delay in adjudication by the Labour Court. He further submits that there are no ground to deny reinstatement to the petitioner but in any case if petitioner is not reinstated then he should be awarded compensation as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & ANR. in Civil Appeal No(s). ………….. of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Civil) No(s). 20902/2024 vide judgment dated 29.01.2025. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and he submitted that neither there was a sanctioned post nor a regular appointment. He further submits that there is no power of appointment either to Village Panchayat or to a Sarpanch. He further referred the documents and submitted that the petitioner has not worked either on daily basis or on fixed remuneration basis in any Government Department. He further referred judgment dated 31.07.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in case of The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar and Anr. : DB [2026:RJ-JP:4102] (3 of 5) [CW-5019/2018] Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and bunch of petitions and submitted that after considering several judgments, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has laid down a formula to award lump sum compensation with maximum amount of ₹3,00,000/-. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The termination order dated 01.02.2010 was challenged by the petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and a reference is filed before the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer. The Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal in order dated 18.04.2017 has declared termination order dated 01.02.2010 as unfair and illegal, but instead of reinstatement, has directed payment of ₹1,00,000/- as lump sum compensation. Admittedly, the period of service rendered by petitioner is nine years as per observation by the Industrial Tribunal. 6. The respondents have not challenged the award dated 18.04.2017. Thus, the award dated 18.04.2017 has attained finality as regards to respondents are concerned, the termination order dated 01.02.2010 is unfair and illegal. 7. Whether the post of Class-IV or Peon is a sanctioned post or not is immaterial as the Labour Court has not directed for reinstatement, similarly the mode of recruitment or regularization is not a subject matter of this Court. The only question is : Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement or not? The Court has to consider overall circumstances and the observation made by the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, which clearly indicate that neither there was a sanctioned post nor the petitioner was appointed in regular capacity. The award has not [2026:RJ-JP:4102] (4 of 5) [CW-5019/2018] been challenged, therefore whatever be the capacity of the petitioner, but certainly his termination was found as bad. The petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement as neither there was a regular post nor there is provision of any post in Panchayat so as to accord appointment to the petitioner. Thus the Labour Court has rightly denied the reinstatement. 8. As regard to compensation is concerned, in the case of The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar and Anr. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has observed that during intervening period of 25 to 30 years or more, the workman has already settled in their life, thus, the interest of justice would be served if compensation is calculated @ ₹1,00,000/- for service of 1 year, ₹1,50,000/- for service of 2 years, ₹2,50,000/- for service of 3 years and ₹3,00,000/- for more than service of 3 years. An issue was recently considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & ANR. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed for compensation @ ₹1,50,000/- per annum for the period for which the workman has worked with respondents in lieu of reinstatement. 9. Since we have the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, we have to apply the ratio in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation @ ₹1,50,000/- per annum for service of 9 years, which rendered by him in respondents-Department. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and award dated 18.04.2017 passed by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer in LCR No. 03/2014 is modified to the extent that the [2026:RJ-JP:4102] (5 of 5) [CW-5019/2018] petitioner is entitled for a lump sum compensation of ₹13,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The respondents are directed to make the payment within a period of 90 days from date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the petitioner is also entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from today. 11. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/65