Mohammad Rafiq, J.:— Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have in the meeting held by the Committee on 12.5.2015, taken a decision not to regularise the services of the petitioner. The report of the Committee has been produced for perusal of the Court.
2. This Court cannot accept the decision of the Committee as this is nothing but an attempt to not only override the judgement of the Court, but also deliberately flouting the order of the Court. The Committee has relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Uma Devi v. State of Karnataka-(2006) 4 SCC 1 alleging that petitioner being part time employee could not be considered for regularisation. The judgement of Uma Devi, supra was cited on behalf of the respondents even during 2 the course of arguments in the writ petition, especially with reference to observations made in para 53 of the judgement that since the petitioner has been continued in service due to intervention of the Court, he would not be entitled to reinstatement. The said objection was rejected by this Court taking note of the fact that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis on March, 1986. His services were terminated on 25.3.1988 The dispute was referred to the Labour Court at his instance. The Labour Court by award dated 26.12.2002 held his termination illegal and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service alongwith 50% back wages. The aforesaid award has attained finality. When the award was not complied with, petitioner approached this Court filing the writ petition. This Court vide judgement dated 28.1.2011 required the petitioner to submit a representation to CMHO, Jaipur-I, who was directed to decide the same verifying the fact whether petitioner had joined and worked in the respondent-department and pay arrears of salary within a period of one month. This Court while rejecting the argument also observed that the observations of Supreme Court in para 53 of the judgement of Uma Devi, supra that while computing period of ten years, the period during which the employee has been continued in service due to the intervention of the Court or interim order passed by the Court, would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner because his rights have been finally adjudicated in the award dated 26.12.2002, which has attained finality in favour of petitioner. Petitioner has thus to be treated continued in service of the respondents for last 28 years as per the Rajasthan Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2009. The writ petition was allowed with the positive direction to the respondents to regularise his service from the cut off date given in the Rules of 2009, however, entitling him to notional benefits for the intervening period and granting actual benefits from the date of order of regularisation.
3. Compliance of the judgment cannot be made to depend on the recommendation of the Committee set up by the respondents. The answer of the respondents is nothing but deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by the Court. Even then this Court in the interest of justice and on the request of respondents, is inclined to grant 4 one more opportunity to the respondents to make compliance of the order of this Court. The matter to come up on 22.7.2015 If the respondents do not make compliance of the order and file the compliance report before that date, they shall appear personally to explain as to why they may not be punished for willful disobedience of the order of this Court.
4. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents and also to Shri. S.K Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General for the needful.