Court affirms regularization of service for respondent denied pension; State's inconsistent stance rejected.

The Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge to grant regularization of service to the respondent, who had been denied pension due to lack of Employment Exchange sponsorship. The Court found the State's stance inconsistent as colleagues of the respondent were regularized without such sponsorship. The Single Judge's order for regularization was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

---

---

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.

---