top of page


Case Number: Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and Another v. Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc.

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 2096-2198/2022

Quorum: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Judgment Date: 28/03/2022

Counsel for Appellant: Dr. Manish Singhvi

Counsel for Respondents: Dr. Vineet Kothari and Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara

Author: Pragash B, Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

Background of the case

The Original Writ Petitioners were appointed on different posts namely like 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 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.

The Sub-Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University were held on 22.03.1999 and 26.03.1999 for considering the regularisation of the services of six persons on contractual/daily wage basis and the said committee recommended for the regularization of their services. The recommendation was confirmed in a Meeting of the Syndicate dated 28.03.1999. Once again, the respondents prayed for regularization of services on ground of parity with the above decision taken by the Syndicate of the University. However, the same was not agreed to by the University.

Meanwhile 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 but their services were not regularized. Therefore, separate writ appeals were filed before the Honourable High Court of Rajasthan and the same were allowed by different benches of the High Court directing the University to regularize the services of the respondents herein. Hence the appeal was preferred before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 347/2019 and other allied writ appeals by which the Division Bench has dismissed he said appeals.

The Division Bench has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the University to regularize the services with consequential reliefs. In some of the cases, even the special leave petitions filed by the University before this Court were also dismissed. The employer University has preferred the present appeals. 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.

Findings of the Court

The Honourable Supreme Court of India observed that the petitions were filed in the year 2018/2019. There must be no heavy financial burden on university and must strike balance with respect to petitioners who have worked more than 15 to 30 years. If it is ordered that the actual consequential benefits on regularization of their services are restricted to 3 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 regularised, it will meet the ends of justice. (Para 4)

The Apex Court of India held that

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.” (Para 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. (Para 5)



bottom of page