Unfortunate That State Of Rajasthan Has Been Harassing Poor Litigant: Supreme Court Imposes ₹ 10 Lakhs Cost For Filing Frivolous SLP

Accordingly, the bench imposed a cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs on the State to be paid to the litigant-respondent.

The respondent was a part-time labourer who has been litigating for the past 22 years despite the fact that he was extended benefits by the Labour Court in the year 2001 itself.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “It is unfortunate that the State of Rajasthan has been harassing the poor litigant, a part-time labourer, who was extended benefits by the Labour Court in the year 2001, i.e. for the last 22 years he has been litigating. This is totally a frivolous petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to be paid to the respondent within four weeks from today and file proof of such payment before this Court within six weeks”.

AOR Ketan Paul appeared for the petitioner.

In the present matter, the State of Rajasthan came up in a Special Leave Petition against the orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench directing for implementation of the said award.

Through the award, the respondent was reinstated into employment by the Labour Court in the year 2001 and the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan was dismissed. Thereafter, continuously the respondent was being compelled to file repeated litigation in order to get the fruits of the award of the Labour Court.

For the background, the respondent was held entitled for regularization and consequential benefits from the date when he became eligible to get regularization in view of the notification, which were ordered to be paid within a period of six weeks after the date of regularization. The respondent workman was appointed as a part-time employee on May 1, 1993 and claimed that he was discharging duties as a full-time employee as attendant i.e. Class IV employee, his services were discontinued on July 3, 1994.

The division bench in the impugned order while referring to State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors.: (2011) 2 SCC 429 had observed, “…the said judgment pertain to the permanent/temporary employees of aided hostels and not the employees of the Government, wherein, it was laid down that as they were employees of the aided private charitable organizations, which run such aided hostels they could not maintain any writ petition claiming status or salary on part with the corresponding post holders in the State Government service nor claim regularization of service under the State Government, which judgment has no application to the facts of the present case, as admittedly, the petitioner was engaged by the State”.

Appearance:

Petitioner: AOR Ketan Paul, Advocates Shubhi Pandey, Chakshu Purohit

Cause Title: State Of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Gopal Bijawat