[2026:RJ-JP:15050] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12521/2025 1. Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Tonk (Formerly Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Mandal, Niwai, Tonk). 2. Assistant Engineer, (O & M), Rural, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Niwai, Distt. Tonk (Formerly Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Mandal, Niwai, Tonk). ----Petitioners Versus President, Bijli Karamchari Sangh (H.M.S.), Tonk (Workman Kishanlal Gurjar, Designation- Helper). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Dutt Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : -- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 10/04/2026 1. On the request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the present writ petition is taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 06.08.2024 (Annex.3). The challenge in the said award is with regard to the non-grant of continuity of service, semi-regularization, and regularization in terms of the policy. 3. The facts further disclose that previously, the respondent was terminated from service vide order dated 20.09.1976, and vide award dated 01.05.1986, his termination order was set aside, [2026:RJ-JP:15050] (2 of 3) [CW-12521/2025] and he was granted reinstatement along with full wages and other benefits, and was reinstated on 19.02.1992. 4. The present dispute was raised before the learned Labour Court on account of refusal to grant continuity of service and also non-grant of regularization as was made applicable to other co- employees. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, has granted all the reliefs which the employee had sought. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the order of reinstatement passed under the award dated 01.05.1986 does not specifically refer to the grant of any continuity of service. The award only refers to the grant of wages, and his second argument is that the relief prayed for in the present impugned award also suffers from res judicata. 6. Both the arguments are required to be rejected at the threshold. 7. Dealing with the first argument, when the wages have been fully granted, it is implicit that the continuity of service is deemed to have been granted; therefore, a specific order regarding continuity of service is not required to be made. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 8. Dealing with the second argument, the issue in the previous award was with regard to the validity of the termination order, whereas the issue in the present award is with regard to the grant of continuity of service and other consequential benefits, including regularization. The relief in the present award has nothing to do with the relief in the previous award. The principle of res judicata does not apply to the present relief sought by the workman in the [2026:RJ-JP:15050] (3 of 3) [CW-12521/2025] award; therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed at this stage. 9. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dispose of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 5-PoonamS/-