[2025:RJ-JP:52012] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9883/2013 Babu Lal Jangid (Deceased) S/o Shri Ganga Lahri, R/o 22, Ladiya Bag, Alwar through 1/1) Smt. Laxmi W/o Late Shri Babu Lal Jangid, aged aboiut 58 years R/o 118, Bheru ka Chabutra, Gulab Bagh, Ward No. 27, Alwar (Raj.) 1/2) Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Jangid, aged about 38 years, R/o 118, Bheru ka Chabutra, Gulab Bagh, Ward No. 27, Alwar (Raj.) 1/3) Sunayana D/o Late Babu Lal Jangid, W/o Dilip Jangid, aged about 30 years, R/o Near Gopal Cinema, Alwar (Raj.) 1/4) Shubham Jangid, S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Jangid, aged about 19 years, R/o 118, Bheru ka Chabutra, Gulab Bagh, Ward No. 27, Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director, Technical Education, Raj., Jodhpur 3. Assistant Director (Training), Technical Education, Raj. Jodhpur 4. Principal Industrial Training Institute, Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni with Dr. Nitin Soni, Mr. Mohit Soni and Mr. Vishal Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avanish Kumar Sharma, Dy. GC (through Video Conferencing) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order REPORTABLE Arguments concluded on ::: November 28, 2025 Reserved on ::: November 28, 2025 Pronounced on ::: January 19, 2026 [2025:RJ-JP:52012] (2 of 9) [CW-9883/2013] 1. The petitioner- Babu Lal Jangid by filing the instant writ petition has made a challenge to the order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-11) issued by the respondent No.2. The petitioner has also prayed to give him regular pay scale from the date from which the person junior to him namely Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma has been given, with all consequential benefits. The petitioner further prayed to regularize him on the said post from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has also prayed to award an interest @ 9% p.a. on the dues which are payable to him. 2. During pendency of this writ petition- Babu Lal Jangid, expired and his legal heirs were taken on record. 3. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the petitioner- Babu Lal Jangid was appointed on the post of Carpenter on 19.06.1989 as a daily wages employee on Rs. 14 per day. The petitioner’s services were terminated orally on 29.12.1993. The petitioner challenged the termination order dated 29.12.1993 before the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. The learned Labour Court, Bharatpur on 16.06.2000 passed an award in favour of the petitioner and reinstated the petitioner in service with back wages. The respondents-authorities aggrieved with the award dated 16.06.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court, preferred writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3516/2000 [2025:RJ-JP:52012] (3 of 9) [CW-9883/2013] before the High Court. Vide order dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure-4) the Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition on merits filed by the respondents- authorities. Aggrieved with the order dated 21.09.2000 (Annex.2) passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court, the respondents-authorities preferred D.B. Special Appeal before this Court which was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1044/2000. The Hon’ble Division Bench vide its judgment dated 08.05.2008 while disposing of the appeal, remanded the matter for fresh decision to the learned Single Judge. Vide order dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure-4) the learned Single Judge uphold the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. It has also been pleaded that the services of Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma, who was junior to the petitioner, were regularized vide order dated 08.12.1997 (Annexure-9), though the petitioner has been deprived. On 12.05.2013 the petitioner said to have served a notice for demand of justice to the respondent-authorities. Now, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in not giving regular pay scale to the petitioner who is working from the last 24 years is totally illegal, arbitrary and is not sustainable in eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitute of [2025:RJ-JP:52012] (4 of 9) [CW-9883/2013] India. Counsel also submitted that the person junior to the petitioner namely; Shri Ram Pratap Sharma has been regularized on 08.12.1997, but the petitioner has been deprived. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.09.2012 so also the action of the respondents by which the petitioner has not been regularized is per se illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aide. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Class IV/Carpenter and doing the work of Carpenter from the last more than 24 years continuously but he has not been given regular pay scale from the date the person junior to him namely; Mr Ram Pratap Sharma has so been given, is totally illegal and arbitrary. 5. Mr. Avinash Sharma Dy. G.C. (through V.C.) appearing for the respondent opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the impugned order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-11) passed by the respondent-authorities is perfectly legal and therefore no interference is required. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition in which he prayed to give him similar treatment to that of Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma who was appointed with him by calling name from District Employment Office. It has also been mentioned in the rejoinder that Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma, who is junior to the petitioner was regularized on the basis of [2025:RJ-JP:52012] (5 of 9) [CW-9883/2013] judgment passed by the High Court on 20.08.1993 w.e.f. 17.03.1993 but the petitioner has been harassed without any fault even his oral termination dated 29.12.1993 was found to be illegal and arbitrary and has been set aside by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 16.06.2000 with continuity of service. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by both the counsels appearing for the respective parties and meticulously gone through the entire material made available to the Court. 8. The question before this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as stated above, the present petitioner is entitled for regularization and other benefits as extended to the person junior to him namely; Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma vide order dated 08.12.1997? 9. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner was initially appointed on 19.06.1989 and other person namely; Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma was appointed on 05.08.1989. Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3601/1993 before the High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 20.08.1993 asking him to submit a representation to the respondents- Authority for his claim of regularization. The Court while hearing the petition so as to verify the facts stated by the counsel for the petitioner also summoned the record of S.B. Civil Writ Petition [2025:RJ-JP:52012] (6 of 9) [CW-9883/2013] No.3601/1993 filed by Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.08.1993. The Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma, directed the respondents to examine the representation submitted by him and if the petitioner is entitled for equal pay on the basis of equal work, then the benefit be given to him from the date of filing the writ petition i.e. 17.03.1993. The respondents in view of the directions given in the order dated 20.08.1993 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3601/1993, allowed Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma the benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 17.03.1993 in the regular pay-scale of Class-IV employee. 10. The petitioner who was appointed prior to Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma, his services were terminated vide order dated 29.12.1993. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner undergone the proceedings and remedy available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act by submitting a statement of claim in view of the reference made to the Labour Court. 11. The Labour Court in LCR No.48/1999, vide award dated 16.06.2000 declared the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 29.12.1993 as illegal and unjustified and the petitioner was held entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity. The petitioner was also allowed 50% back wages for the intervening period and full wages from the date of award. [2025:RJ-JP:52012] (7 of 9) [CW-9883/2013] 12. Against the Award of the Labour Court, the respondents preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3516/2000, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2000. Against the order dated 21.09.2000 passed by the learned Single Bench, the respondents preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1044/2000. The Division Bench remanded the matter to the learned Single Bench for deciding the writ petition afresh. 13. The Coordinate Bench of this Court decided the writ petition afresh vide its order dated 09.08.2011 dismissing the writ petition. The Coordinate Bench of this Court was not inclined to interfere with in the Award of reinstatement, however, held that the petitioner would not be entitled for 50% back-wages. The order of reinstatement along-with continuity in service has not been interfered with in the writ petition. Meaning-thereby, the Award of the Labour Court to the extent of reinstatement with continuity in service has become final. Meaning-thereby, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service along-with continuity which means the petitioner would be entitled for all benefits as if he has never been terminated except the wages for intervening period. 14. In view of the Award of the Labour Court for continuity in service, the petitioner is to be treated in service without there-being any break and in that situation, he would be entitled for all consequential benefits which have been [2025:RJ-JP:52012] (8 of 9) [CW-9883/2013] extended to other similarly situated person more particularly the person junior to him. 15. The respondents vide order dated 08.12.1997 granted the benefit of regular pay scale of Class-IV employee w.e.f. 17.03.1993 to Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is also entitled for same benefits. The denial vide order dated 28.09.2012 of extending regularization in service along-with regular pay-scale of Class-IV employee to the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of regularization on the post of Class-IV employee w.e.f. 17.03.1993 as like Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma, the person junior to him, with all consequential benefits. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma, is a person junior to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for the same benefits as have been extended to Mr. Ram Pratap Sharma vide order dated 08.12.1997 i.e. regular pay-scale of Class-IV w.e.f. 17.03.1993. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.09.2012 (Annex.11) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for benefits of regularization of [2025:RJ-JP:52012] (9 of 9) [CW-9883/2013] service as a Class-IV employee w.e.f. 17.03.1993 with all consequential benefits. 18. The respondents shall pass necessary orders, as ordered above, within a period of three months, from the date of receiving a copy of this order. The respondents shall also compute the arrears accordingly which should also be paid to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum within the next two months. 19. Since the original writ petitioner has passed away, the benefits accruing from this order shall be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner. 20. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma N.K./Dy. Registrar-367-S