Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 145 (RAJ)

Narsa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-17

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this writ petition the petitioners have claimed for the grant of semi-permanent status under Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B & R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works & Ayurvedic Departments Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 on completion of two years of service. According to the petitioners they completed two years satisfactory services on the dates mentioned in the schedule which is reproduced below but the respondents have not considered their case for the grant of semi-permanent status: S. No. S. N. in Annexure-1Name of petitioner Date of appointment Completion of two years on 1. 11 Raghunath Ram S/o Jagdish Narain Sarswat 8.1988 8.1990 2. 24 Pratap Ram 3.1989 3.1991 3. 37 Murli Manohar S/o Nar Singh Das 7.1989 7.1991 4. 45 Tulsa Ram S/o Sukha Ram Choudhary 9.1989 9.1991 5. 46 Teja Ram S/o Bhana Ram Nai9.1989 9.1991 6. 51 Puna Ram 2.1990 2.1992 7. 57 Narsa Ram S/o Anada Ram Choudhary 6.1990 6.1992 8. 59 Girdhari Singh S/o Onkar Singh8.1990 8.1992 9. 61 Teja Ram S/o Deva Ram Choudhary 8.1990 8.1992 10. 62 Kishan Singh S/o Mangej Singh8.1990 8.1992 11. 63 Jagdish S/o Deep Chand Ozja.9.1990 9.1992 2. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents admitting the position that the petitioners are entitled for the grant of semi-permanent status under the Rules of 1964. However, the same was not allowed to them as there was no cadred post. The stand of the respondents as it is taken in Paras 4 and 7 of the reply is worth to be noticed as under: "4. That in reply to para No. 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners were engaged on daily wages and they are not in regular employment. Such daily rated workers are eligible for status of semi-permanent employee after completing of two years continuous and satisfactory service subject to the sanction of the cadre-strength by the Government. 7. That in reply to para No. 7 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioners are eligible for status of semi-permanent employees on sanction of cadre-posts by the Government. Presently no cadre-posts are available with the respondents." 3. 7. That in reply to para No. 7 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioners are eligible for status of semi-permanent employees on sanction of cadre-posts by the Government. Presently no cadre-posts are available with the respondents." 3. In view of the reply given by the respondents there is no dispute with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners for the grant of semi-permanent status under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964. The only reason to deny the same as given by the respondents is that the State Government has not enhanced the cadre strength. The concept of cadre is not at all applicable under the Work Charged Service Rules as the work charged services are against the planned works, therefore, the stand taken by the respondents is totally misconceived. I do not see any reason for not extending the semi-permanent status to the petitioners on completion of two years of service from the date of their initial appointment if their services are satisfied. 4. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the purpose of grant of semi-permanent status from the date they have completed two years of service as mentioned in Column 5 of the schedule referred in para 1. If the services of the petitioners are found satisfactory, semi-permanent status be given to them by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the Judgment . The petitioners are also declared entitled for all consequential benefits arising out of the directions given above. 5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.