Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2089 (RAJ)

Tara Chand Saini v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-08

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2005
Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-By the aforesaid writ petition the petitioner has prayed:- (i) Issuewrit, order on direction whereby directing the respondents to declare the petitioners semi-permanent from the date they have completed 2 years service with all the consequential benefits like pay and allowance and seniority. (ii) Any other order deemed just and proper in the interest of justice may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. The work charge employee is entitled for consideration of his claim for semi permanent as per the Rajasthan Work Charge Employee Service Rules 1964. The sub-Rule 3 of Rule-3 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. (3) Employee in continuous service for two years or more expect those covered by sub-Rule (1) shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent work-charged employees or of semi-permanent regular technical staff , provided their record of service, in opinion of the competent Authority, is satisfactory. 3. It appears that the petitioners have been initially appointed as work charge employees and the dates of their appointment and completion of two years are as under:-S.No. Name Date of appointment Date of completion of 2 years service 1. Tara Chand 010.1990 010.1992 2. Sanjay 28.01.1991 28.01.1993 3. Sita Ram 26.09.1991 26.09.1993 4. Deepak 210.1991 210.1993 5. Gugan Ram 012.1991 012.1993 6. Suresh Kumar 212.1991 212.1993 7. Kailash 22.09.1991 22.09.1993 4. But it appears that the compliance of sub-Rule-3 of Rule-3 Rajasthan Work Charge Employee Service Rules 1964 has not been made even after expiry of 12 years. 5. The Government has not been able to satisfy this Court why the said exercise has not been made. In my view the stand of the Government that aforesaid rules are not mandatory is not correct. Since the right of consideration for semi-permanent are conferred under the said Rules, the Government is bound to act in accordance with rules. The said right is a legal right and cannot be denied on the aforesaid stand. .6. This Honble Court in detail has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and decided in favour of the workers in the case reported in 1998 (2) WLC (Raj.) 407 Ila Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., The relevant Paras 13 & 14 of which are reproduced hereunder:- 13. .6. This Honble Court in detail has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and decided in favour of the workers in the case reported in 1998 (2) WLC (Raj.) 407 Ila Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., The relevant Paras 13 & 14 of which are reproduced hereunder:- 13. Thus, it is clear that this Court has been directing the authorities from time to time to grant the status of semi-permanent on completion of two years satisfactory service by a casual work-charged employee and a permanent status on completion of ten years satisfactory service. Not only this, the departments of the State Government have been issuing circular and orders granting status of semi-permanent or permanent on completion of two years and ten years satisfactory service by the work charged employees Inspite of all these, it is really not understandable as to why a discriminating treatment be given to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. In fact, the respondents should have considered all similar cases in the light of the decisions given by this Court to avoid contradictory and conflicting orders. It is, therefore, held that an employee who completes two years satisfactory service acquires right to be declared semi-permanent and the employer is under an obligation to pass appropriate order for conferring this status provided his service record is satisfactory. 14. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders within two months of the date of submitting a certified copy of this order. The appointing authority shall be free to consider the record of the petitioner and if their record is found satisfactory, then necessary orders shall be passed for giving them all consequential benefits from the date they are entitled to get status of semi permanent. The respondents are also directed to grant similar relief to other work-charged employees without waiting for the orders of the Court. In the facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. I direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners and that of other similarly situated persons for declaring them semi permanent in accordance with Rajasthan Work Charge Employee Service Rules 1964.