2019 (4) TMI 880 - HC - Indian Laws

Applicaton for regularization of service rejected - State denied the benefit to the respondent on the ground that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange - HELD THAT - I t is found that even others who were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange were also given the benefit of regularization. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in quashing the impugned order dated 07 September, 2012 and issuing a Mandamus for regularization of service. The appellants have not made out a case for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge - intra-Court appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Regularization of service, Employment Exchange sponsorship denial

In this case, the respondent had filed a Writ Petition challenging the order denying regularization of his service, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent had initially joined the Commercial Tax Department in 1974 through the Employment Exchange on a temporary basis, with a break in service in 1982. He was re-appointed as an Office Assistant in 1982 and later given a special grade after 20 years of service. Upon retirement in 2009, the respondent's service was not regularized, resulting in the denial of pension. The State rejected his request for regularization, citing lack of Employment Exchange sponsorship.

The learned Single Judge referred to a previous order in a similar case where colleagues of the respondent were granted regularization, and this decision was upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. The court noted that even individuals not sponsored by the Employment Exchange were regularized, indicating inconsistency in the State's stance. Consequently, the Single Judge quashed the order denying regularization and issued a Mandamus for regularization, which was upheld in the appeal. The Court found no grounds for interference in the Single Judge's decision and dismissed the intra-Court appeal, closing the case without costs.