Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2206 (RAJ)

Chhotu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-22

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to appoint him on the post of Class IV and to pay the salary in regular pay scale from July 21, 1988. 2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner was discharging the duties of Peon in Government Primary School has on consolidated salary and when the number of students crossed over 200 in the year 1986, the formal order was passed on July 21, 1986 and the consolidated salary was fixed as Rs. 100/-. The contentions of the petitioner is that although he was shown as part time employee, he discharged all the work of Peon throughout the School Durs. The certificates regarding satisfactory service of petitioner had also been issued. The petitioner has also made request for regularisation of his services. 3. In the written statement the respondent No. 2 pleaded that when the r amber of students crossed over 200, the petitioner was engaged as water-man on consolidated salary from July 21, 1986 to November 10, 1991. He did not discharge any other duty. Regarding certificates issued by Head Master the respondent stated that the Head Master was not empowered to issue such certificate. Since there is no sanctioned post of water-man in the school and the petitioner was only part time employee he is not entitled for appointment on the post of Class IV. 4. Having heard the submissions and scanning the record I notice that the petitioner although had worked as part time employee, his services were utilised by the respondents throughout school hours as certified by the Head Master of the School. In State of Rajasthan v. Mod Singh (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21173/95 decided on March 29, 1996) their Lordships of Supreme Court made following observations in regard to part time employee. "We have heard the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan as well as the respondents in the present case. The learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan has placed before us the Scheme drawn by the State for regularisation of part time employees in question for the purpose of dividing them into three groups. The first group comprising those who have completed five years of service on May, 1995. The learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan has placed before us the Scheme drawn by the State for regularisation of part time employees in question for the purpose of dividing them into three groups. The first group comprising those who have completed five years of service on May, 1995. The second group comprises those who have completed two years of service in May, 1995 and in the third group comprises those who have been working on May 1. 1995 and have continued to work thereafter. These employees are intended to be regularised from August 15, 1996, April 1, 1997 and April 1, 1998 respectively. The seniority will be determined on the basis of the first working day in accordance with the relevant rules. The eligibility in regard to age, educational qualification and physical fitness have also to be determined in accordance with the Rules applicable to Class IV employees in different departments at the relevant point of time. The final implication has also been separately worked down. The Scheme has been appended to the list of dates as Annexure 'A' which we taken on record. The Scheme appears to be reasonable and acceptable and the Government of Rajasthan may proceed to finalise and implement the same except that in first phase a clarification would be required since it says that employees who have completed five years on May, 1995 and 'those part time employees who have given pay scale in compliance of various court judgments" which gives the impression that they may not have completed five years of service and even they are accepted to be regularised. The learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan stated that in regard to the later groups of five years falling into the first phase a clarificatory statement may be required to be made which the state would be at liberty to comply. Taking this Scheme to be just and reasonable. We dispose of these petitions by substituting the High Court's order by an order directing regularisation as per the scheme. The petitions are disposed of accordingly." 5. I am of the considered view that the similar scheme for the petitioner ought to have been framed. In the garb of part time appointment the petitioner cannot subject to exploitation. 6. We dispose of these petitions by substituting the High Court's order by an order directing regularisation as per the scheme. The petitions are disposed of accordingly." 5. I am of the considered view that the similar scheme for the petitioner ought to have been framed. In the garb of part time appointment the petitioner cannot subject to exploitation. 6. For these reasons I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to frame a scheme for regularisation of the petitioner as is being framed by the Social Welfare Department and consider the petitioner for regularisation of his services. Till the services of the petitioner are regularised he shall be paid minimum of the pay scale of Class IV employee with effect from the date of filing this writ petition i.e. February 19, 2001. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed as above. *******