Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur vs Mukesh Sharma - Supreme Court Case

Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur vs Mukesh Sharma - Supreme Court Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2096-2198 OF 2022
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and Anr. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 347 of 2019 and other allied writ
appeals by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed
the said appeals and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge passed in respective writ petitions by which the
learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petitions and directed the
appellant University to regularize their services with all consequential
benefits, the employer University has preferred the present appeals.
1
2. The respective original writ petitioners were appointed on different
posts namely viz. Chowkidar/Peon, Book Attendant, LDC, Library
Assistant, Junior Accountant, Accountant, Helper, Staff Nurse, Sweeper,
Rakshak, Lab Bearer, Lab Attendant, Book Lifter, Security Guard,
Matron, Driver/Peon, LDC cum Computer Operator of the appellant- Jai
Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the “J.N.V.
University') on different dates through the placement agency. Since all
of them had already put in almost 15-30 years of service, they requested
for regularizing their services in the University but their services were not
regularized.
2.1 In the year 1999, the meetings of the Sub-Committee constituted
by the Vice Chancellor of the University were held on 22.03.1999 and
26.03.1999 for considering regularization of the services of six persons
who were rendering their services in a similar fashion like the
respondents herein - petitioners in the University on contractual/daily
wage basis. The said Sub-Committee recommended for regularization of
their services. The said recommendation was confirmed in a Meeting of
the Syndicate dated 28.03.1999. Once again, the respondentspetitioners prayed for regularizing their services on the ground of parity
in view of the decision taken by the Syndicate of the University on
28.03.1999 whereby six similarly situated employees were confirmed
2
and were also granted regular pay scale. However, the same was not
agreed to by the University.
2.2 It is to be noted that the University Administration vide its
Notification dated 27.10.2017 sought information in a prescribed
proforma from different departments regarding persons rendering the
services on contract basis, probably with a view to regularize their
services. However, their services were not regularized and therefore
separate writ appeals were filed before the High Court and the same
were allowed by different Benches of the High Court directing the
University to regularize the services of the respondents herein – original
writ petitioners with all consequential benefits.
2.3 The judgments and orders passed by different Benches were the
subject matter before the Division Bench. By the impugned common
judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed
the said appeals. While dismissing the appeals, the Division Bench has
also noted that the writ petitions preferred by some of the employees
were allowed by the learned Single Judge Benches and the appeals
preferred by the Universities were also dismissed by the Division bench
and in some of the cases, even the special leave petitions filed by the
University before this Court were also dismissed.
3
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the University has
preferred the present appeals.
3. By order dated 07.02.2022, this Court issued a limited notice to
restrict the benefits accruing from the regularization to three years prior
to filing of the writ appeals. The order dated 07.02.2022 reads as
under:-
“We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior
Advocate, appearing for the petitioner-University at
length.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has directed to regularize the services of the
respondents with all consequential benefits. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court granting regularization, more
particularly, the concerned employees have been
continued in service, may be on contractual basis, for
more than 15-30 years of service. The question of law, if
any, is kept open.
Now, so far as the giving consequential benefits on
regularization, we issue limited notice to the respondents,
returnable on 14.03.2022 and to show cause why the
benefit accruing from the regularization may not be
restricted to the three years prior to filing of the writ
petitions.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted.”
4. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant University and Dr. Vineet Kothari
4
and Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective respondents – original writ petitioners. These writ petitions
were filed in the year 2018/2019. In order to see that there is no heavy
financial burden upon the University and at the same time to strike a
balance and considering the fact that the respective original writ
petitioners have worked for more than 15 to 30 years, if it is ordered that
the actual consequential benefits on regularization of their services are
restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petitions, while they are
granted the benefit of regularization notionally and with continuity of the
service from the date on which the other similarly situated employees
were regularized, it will meet the ends of justice.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court and those of the learned Single Judge are hereby
modified and it is ordered that the original writ petitioners shall be
entitled to the actual consequential benefits on regularization for the
period prior to three years of filing of the writ petitions only. However,
they shall be entitled to continuity in service and benefits notionally on
regularization, from the date on which the similarly situated employees
were regularized.
5
All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
 [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
MARCH 28, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
6

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर