Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1956 (RAJ)

Sohan Singh v. RSRTC

2006-05-31

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2006
Judgment Mohammad Rafiq, J.-Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 05.06.1989 which is (Exhibit 4). This order was passed by the Executive Director (Admn.) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (herein after referred to as The Corporation) whereby the earlier order dated 31.05.1989 (Exhibit-3) appointing the petitioner who was hitherto working on daily wages basis against a clear vacant post in the regular pay scale of Rs. 700-10-850-15-865 was withdrawn on the premises that presently there was no vacant post available for a regular Class Four Employee. The validity of this order was assailed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were also granted regular pay scale vide order dated 23.03.1990 (Exhibit-6). Even though, they all are juniors to the petitioner and further that the regular pay scale granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn on the basis of the circular issued by the respondents, sent to all their sub-ordinate offices which is (Exhibit-8) directing them that no workman should be allowed to complete 240 days in their employment and their services be terminated before completion of 240 days. 2. It has been submitted that since, the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in the employment of the respondents, he was entitled to be fixed in the regular pay scales. 3. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a detailed reply thereto. In the reply, it has been stated by the respondents that the initial appointment of the petitioner was made only for a period of three months on daily wages basis. It has further been denied that the appointment of the petitioner was not made on the clear vacant post of Class Four Employee as no clear vacant post was available with the respondents at the material time. Apart from that the regular appointment order given to Sita Ram was also recalled. It has been stated that the regular appointment order of the petitioner and others was recalled because there were several other persons who were senior to them, working with the respondents had not yet been granted regular pay scales. It has been stated that the order dated 23.03.1990 (Exhibit 6) relied upon by the petitioner pertains to the employees of the Head Quarter of Kota and Bikaner Division Office and does not belong to the Office of the petitioners Division. It has been stated that the order dated 23.03.1990 (Exhibit 6) relied upon by the petitioner pertains to the employees of the Head Quarter of Kota and Bikaner Division Office and does not belong to the Office of the petitioners Division. The initial appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with the rule nor by any required mode, he cannot claim regular pay scale in preference to his seniors. It has further been stated in reply to the writ petition that the issue with regard to the regular pay scale is still under consideration of the respondents. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation has produced before the Court a photostate copy of the order No. 8361 dated 012.1994 whereby the petitioner has now been given regular appointment in the pay scale of 750-12-798-12-850-15-940. Unlike, the order passed earlier on 31.05.1989 where under the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis till further orders, this order, this order gives regular appointment to the petitioner although initially placing him on probation for a period of six months. 4. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition has now been granted by the respondents themselves. In so far as the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 who according to the petitioner are junior to him were granted regular pay scale earlier then him vide (Exhibit 6), this argument has been contested by the respondents, who in their reply has stated that these employees are working in the office of Head Quarter, Kota and Bikaner Division whereas the petitioner is working in Sikar office. When the petitioner failed to get the service effected upon the private respondents in spite of notices sent to them repeatedly, therefore, at the request of the petitioner, their names were deleted from the array of the respondents on 14.02.2005. The petitioner has also not placed on record any material to show as to on what basis he claims to be senior to the private respondents nor any rules or regulations have been shown by him to substantiate his claim with regard to seniority. The petitioner has also not placed on record any material to show as to on what basis he claims to be senior to the private respondents nor any rules or regulations have been shown by him to substantiate his claim with regard to seniority. In the absence of any such material, the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to seniority cannot be entertained or accepted in view of the order dated 012.1994 which has been placed on record by the learned Counsel for the respondents, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. With the observations made above, the writ petition is disposed of .