[2026:RJ-JP:1101] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 105/2017 Bharatram Sahu S/o Shri Moolchand Sahu, Village and Post Office- Aandhi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Government of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Sector, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Joint Government Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Sector, (Rural Development Part-I), Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad (Rural Development Cell), Collectorate, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Ashutosh Udawat, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ,oa vk/kkjksa ij ;g fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dj ;kph ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fouez izkFkZuk djrk gS fd%& 1- ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr fjV] vkns’k ;k vU; dksbZ funsZ’k tkjh dj izR;FkhZx.k dks funsZf’kr djsa fd os ;kph dks fnukad 08-03-2016 ls dfu"B ds in dk osru ¼,fj;j lfgr½ e; 9 izfr’kr C;kt ds Hkqxrku djsaA 2- vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; izdj.k ds rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq;s mfpr le>s fnykus dh d`ik djsaA” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC on 01.07.1994 and he worked till 31.05.1995 but on 01.06.1995 his services were terminated without assigning any reason. Learned counsel has further submitted that the dispute was raised and same was referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, [2026:RJ-JP:1101] (2 of 7) [CW-105/2017] 1947 to the Labour Court-I, Jaipur and the award is passed in favour of petitioner on 07.11.2001. He further submitted that the respondents have preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17202/2012 before this Hon’ble Court and during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure-2) on post of LDC on monthly wages of ₹8,910/- with a condition that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of two years. He further submitted that the order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure-2) was recalled by the respondents on 08.03.2016 and petitioner was again appointed as workman on daily wages basis. He further submitted that the writ petition was dismissed on 21.04.2016 and award has attained finality. 3. He further submitted that he has filed an application for amendment in the writ petition for inclusion of relief of regularisation. He further submitted that the subsequent order passed by the respondents on 08.03.2016 is also challenged by him, by way of amendment. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned AAG and he submitted that pursuant to award dated 07.11.2001 the petitioner was reinstated pending writ petition but due to clerical mistake order dated 23.02.2016 was issued but after noticing the mistake committed from their side they have modified the order so as to ensure compliance of the award of the Labour Court. He also submitted that the petitioner has no right to claim regularisation against the rule, as no order was passed by the Labour Court. He also submitted [2026:RJ-JP:1101] (3 of 7) [CW-105/2017] that petitioner may file a representation for consideration of his matter. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the petitioner reserves a right to seek remedy and regularisation in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of UP and Anr., order dated 19.08.2025; 2025 INSC 998 and Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors.:2024 INSC 1034. He also submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage by protecting minimum of pay scale for which the petitioner is entitled as this Hon’ble Court has granted interim order on 10.01.2017. 6. Learned AAG submits that the writ petition be disposed of after considering the submissions of both the parties. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AAG and perused the material placed on record. 8. The fact of the case indicate that the Labour Court-I, Jaipur has declared the termination of petitioner on 01.06.1995 as unfair and illegal and directed the respondents to reinstate with continuity but no back wages were awarded to the petitioner. The award was challenged before this Court by filing writ petition no. 17202/2012, which was dismissed on 21.04.2016, thus, the award dated 07.11.2001 has attained finality. The award clearly indicate that the petitioner was engaged as LDC and his claim was only for the post of LDC. During pendency of writ petition, the order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure-2) is passed by Zila Parishad (Rural Development Cell, Jaipur) and same is reproduced as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:1101] (4 of 7) [CW-105/2017] ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; esa dsl uEcj 119@96 esa ikfjr vkokMZ fnukad 07-11-2001 ds fu.kZ; dh ikyuk ,oa Jheku la;qDr “kklu lfpo ¼iz”kklu½] xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh Jh Hkjrjke lkgw iq= Jh ewypUn lkgw fuoklh xzke ,oa iksLV+&vka/kh] rg0&teokjkex<+] ftyk&t;iqj dh fu;qfDr ftyk ifj’kn¼xzkeh.k fodkl izdks’B½] t;iqj esa dfu’B fyfid ds in ij 8910@& izfrekg ikfjJfed ekuns; ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds fu;ekuqlkj vU; “krksZa ij iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ rkSj ij ekuuh; mPp U;;ky; esa nk;j fjV la[;k 17202@12 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds v/;/khu fu;qfDr nh tkrh gSA Jh Hkjrjke lkgw dk nks o’kZ dk ijhfo{kk dky mifLFkfr fnukad ls ekuk tkosxkA dk;ZHkkj lEHkkyus ij Jh Hkjrjke lkgw viuh “kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk lacaf/kr ewy izek.k i=ksa lfgr vf/kd`r fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ls izekf.kr esfMdy fQVusl izek.k i= ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds fdUgha nks jktif=r vf/kdkfj;ksa ls izkIr pfj= izek.k i= Hkh izLrqr djsaxs ,oa vU; “krsZa jkT; ljdkj ds fu;ekuqlkj gksxhA 9. Thereafter, the order dated 23.02.2016 was modified on 08.03.2016 and same is reproduced as under:- ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; }kjk ,ylhvkj la[;k 119@96 esa ikfjr vokMZ fnukad 07-11-2001 dh ikyuk esa ,oa Jheku~ la;qDr “kklu lfpo ¼iz”kklu½] xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx t;iqj ds i=kad ,Q&13¼6½ izkfo@xzqi01@2012 t;iqj fnukad 23-02-2016 dh vuqikyuk esa bl dk;kZy; i=koyh ds fnukad 23-02-2016 dks tkjh dk;kZy; vkns”k dks ,rn }kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA Jfed Jh Hkjrjke lkgq fu;qfDr bl dk;kZy; }kjk fd;k tkuk ;nfi fookfnr gS] ijUrq Jfed Jh Hkjrjke lkgq dks ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vokMZ esa fofgr vuqlkj Jfed ds in ij fnukad 07-11-2001 ls lsok esa fujUrjrk dk;e j[kh tkdj lsok esa iqu% fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gSA pw¡fd ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; }kjk Jfed dks ns; Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa vokMZ esa dksbZ funsZ”k ugha fn;s gS] vr% Jfed }kjk NVuh ds le; izkIr fd tkus okyh nSfud jkf”k ,oa Jfed }kjk ekuuh; osru Hkqxrku izkf/kdkjh] esa izLrqr nkos ds vuq:i ,oa mä nkos ds v.MjizksVsLV] Jfed dks fnukad 07-11-2001] dks ns; nSfud [2026:RJ-JP:1101] (5 of 7) [CW-105/2017] Jfed dh nj ls izfrfnu Hkqxrku djus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA Je foHkkx }kjk le;&le; ij tkjh nSfud Jfed dh la”kksf/kr nj ls etnqjh ds Hkqxrku ds Hkh funsZ”k iznku fd;s tkrs gSA mä leLr dk;Zokgh ,oa Jfed dh nSfud osruHkksxh ds in ij fu;qfDr] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ihB t;iqj esa nk;j ,lch flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 17202@12 jktLFkku ljdkj cuke Hkjrjke lkgq esa ikfjr gksus okys vfUre fu.kZ; ls vf/k”kkf’kr gksxkA 10. Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed on 21.04.2016. The petitioner has filed a writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay salary (with arrear) for the post of LDC. The statement of petitioner clearly indicate that the petitioner has joined duty on 08.03.2016 meaning thereby the petitioner has joined the duty only on 08.03.2016 and not just after passing of order dated 23.02.2016. 11. A Co-ordinate Bench while considering the interim relief on 10.01.2017 has directed the respondents to release regular wages to the petitioner to which he is entitled for under the law in terms of order of appointment dated 23.02.2016. The petitioner has been allowed to continue till date. After order dated 10.01.2017, the respondents are under an obligation to pay petitioner minimum of pay scale (atleast ₹8,910/- per month). The appointment order of the petitioner was issued on 23.02.2016 and was modified on 08.03.2016 when the petitioner has joined the Office. The material on record clearly indicate that the Labour Court has reinstated petitioner after declaring his termination as unfair and illegal. This means the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated on post of LDC. Neither labour court not this Court has directed regularisation of present petitioner. Even the screening [2026:RJ-JP:1101] (6 of 7) [CW-105/2017] Committee has not approved the case of present petitioner for regularisation constituted pursuant to judgment in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 as on 23.02.2016 the actual services of petitioner was not 10 years. The Labour Court has allowed the continuity but without back wages. Thus, the petitioner was neither appointed on regular post nor he was regularised in service in any manner. The order dated 23.02.2016 which was modified on 08.03.2016 does not give any right to the petitioner, for regularisation. Moreover, at the time of filing of the writ petition, the order dated 08.03.2016 was not challenged by the petitioner rather the writ petition is filed only for payment on post of LDC from 08.03.2016. 12. Now the amendment application is filed for amending the writ petition to include prayer to set aside the order dated 08.03.2016. The petitioner has served a copy of amended writ petition to the counsel for respondent(s) but considering that the writ petition is pending for last more than nine years and in the year 2023 the petitioner came to know about defect in the writ petition, therefore, the application is at belated stage and it will change the entire scope of the writ petition. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any amendment in the writ petition and the amendment application is hereby dismissed. 13. Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner was working on the post of LDC and he is entitled for minimum pay in the payscale of LDC, therefore, protecting the interim order dated 10.01.2017 the writ petition is liable for disposal with [2026:RJ-JP:1101] (7 of 7) [CW-105/2017] liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation for regularisation in light of judgment in case of Jaggo and Dharam Singh (Supra). 14. As a result. the writ petition is disposed of in following terms:- i. The petitioner is entitled to continue as LDC pursuant to order dated 23.02.2016 modified on 08.03.2016 but he is entitled to minimum pay in the pay scale of LDC in terms of order dated 23.02.2016 (but should be less than ₹8,910/-). ii. The petitioner may submit a representation within a period of 60 days to the respondents for consideration in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh (supra) and Jaggo (supra) for regularisation on the post of LDC and all other benefits for which he is entitled as per ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh (supra) and Jaggo (supra), but in case of deviation with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation. iii. The petitioner is free to file a fresh writ petition, in case his representation is rejected or not considered by the respondents in accordance with ratio as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. With aforesaid directions, the writ petition along with misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /14