Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1317 (RAJ)

Phoolam Ram Saini v. R. S. R. T. C. Jaipur

2014-07-03

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ application was taken up for final disposal at this stage. 2. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-Corporation', for short), declined the claim of the petitioner for regularisation on the post of Conductor reckoning the initial date of appointment i.e. 18.5.1985, therefore, he has approached this Court praying for the following relief (s): (i) issue a writ/order or direction in the nature thereby the petitioner be regularised on the post of conductor with all consequential benefits from 18.05.1988 i.e. just after 3 years of initial appointment w.e.f. 18.05.1985; and (ii) issue a writ/order or direction in the nature thereby the non-petitioners be directed to grant the benefit of selection grade of 9 and 18 years service, to the petitioner; (iii) issue a appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature thereby the non-petitioners be directed to grant the annual grade increments from 18.05.1988 to the petitioner; (iv) issue a appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature thereby the non petitioners be directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the arrear. (v) issue an appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature thereby the non-petitioners be regularised directed to revise the seniority list and the petitioner be placed at proper place according to the appointment date 18.05.1985. (vi) Any other order or relief which is favourable to the petitioner be also granted and costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner. 3. Shron off unnecessary details the material facts indispensable for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The petitioner, initially appointed as a trainee conductor on 18.05.1985, was removed from service on 18th December, 1985. Assailing the action of removal from service, the petitioner instituted a civil suit which was decreed in his favour on 26th August, 1994 and consequently, the petitioner was reinstated on 21st September, 1995 (Annexure-1). The petitioner entered into a compromise with the respondent-Corporation on 28th March, 1997 (Annexure-2), agreeing to forego all the claims including 75% of back wages. Thus, according to the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner was entitled to 25% of back wages and benefits of seniority as an employee on daily wages basis. As a sequel, an amount of Rs. Thus, according to the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner was entitled to 25% of back wages and benefits of seniority as an employee on daily wages basis. As a sequel, an amount of Rs. 6,125/- was to be paid to the petitioner on account of 25% of back wages provided he reported for duty within two months at the Head Office in compliance of the terms and conditions of the compromise. The petitioner was treated as on duty on daily wages basis as Conductor, and thus, the decree made in favour of the petitioner on 26th August, 1994 was completely satisfied. 4. By order dated 10th July, 2002 (Annexure-3), the committee constituted by the respondent-Corporation at the Depot Level considered the employees working as drivers/conductors for last three years and recommended the name of the petitioner for regularisation as Conductor along with others with an initial period of probation for one year in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 along with other admissible allowances. On successful completion of probation, the petitioner was conferred vide order dated 30th July, 2003 (Annexure-4). The petitioner addressed a notice for demand of justice, through his counsel, claiming benefits of Selection Grade on having completed 9 years and 18 years of service along with arrears; reckoning 18th May, 1985, as the date of initial appointment followed by regularisation after completion of three years i.e. 18th May, 1988. The notice did not evoke any response and, therefore, has instituted the instant writ proceedings. 5. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-Corporation in its counter affidavit, repelling the contentions, has pleaded that the petitioner was never appointed as a trainee conductor as would be evident from the order dated 18th May, 1995 (Annexure-R/1). The appointment was purely on temporary and daily wages basis @ Rs. 15/- (Rupees fifteen only) per day, with further stipulation to the effect that the engagement on daily wages basis could be terminated at any time without any notice including other conditions as stipulated therein. Moreover, the petitioner's work was not at all satisfactory during the relevant period for he was caught carrying 11 passengers without ticket, leading to termination of his services on 18th December, 1985 and rejection of appeal on 10th March, 1987. Moreover, the petitioner's work was not at all satisfactory during the relevant period for he was caught carrying 11 passengers without ticket, leading to termination of his services on 18th December, 1985 and rejection of appeal on 10th March, 1987. The action was challenged by the petitioner by institution of a Civil suit, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 26th August, 1994 and in compliance thereof, the petitioner was reinstated on 21st September, 1995. Further, a bare perusal of the compromise entered into between the parties on 28th March, 1997, reduced to writing (Annexure-2), would reveal that the petitioner was entitled to 25% of wages for the relevant period, and accordingly an amount of Rs. 6,125/- (Rupees Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five only) was paid to him. The petitioner was restored to the status of a daily wage worker as he was. Further, the case of the petitioner, along with similarly placed employees of the Corporation, was considered for regularisation at the depot level and his services were regularized, on the recommendation of the Committee constituted for the purpose, and was offered regular appointment vide order dated 10th July, 2002 (Annexure-3); initially for a period of one year on probation and was confirmed thereafter on successful completion period of probation. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for grant of selection grade after completion of 9/18 years of service, including arrears and interests, reckoning the date of initial appointment i.e. 18.05.1985, is absolutely misconceived, misleading and without any factual foundation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts insistently argued that since the initial date of appointment of the petitioner was 18th May, 1985, therefore, the petitioner deserves the grant of benefits of selection grade after completion of 9/18 years with reference to the date of initial appointment including the benefit of seniority. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been deprived of the arrears and benefits of selection grade in view of the compromise and thus, the action of the respondent-Corporation is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even under the terms of compromise, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of seniority as agreed upon between the parties and consequently, the benefits of selection grade after completion of 9/18 years. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even under the terms of compromise, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of seniority as agreed upon between the parties and consequently, the benefits of selection grade after completion of 9/18 years. The relief ought to have been accorded to the petitioner, who has already put in service of 19 years since his initial appointment w.e.f. 18th May, 1985. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record. 8. There is no dispute between the parties that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1987 and he was reinstated in compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court vide order dated 21st September, 1995. Further, as per the terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties, reduced to writing, the petitioner gave up his claim for 75% back wages and thus, on account of 25% back wages a sum of Rs. 6,125/-(Rupees Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five only) was to be paid to him. The petitioner was allowed the benefit of seniority obviously with the status of a daily wager. 9. The case of the petitioner along with other eligible and similarly situated candidates/employees of the respondent-Corporation, working on daily wages, who had put in three years of service, was considered by a Committee. As a consequence of the recommendations made by the Committee, the service of the petitioner was regularised vide order dated 10th July, 2002; in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 with the stipulation of one year on probation followed by regularisation on successful completion of the period of probation. 10. In view of the admitted facts, the claim of the petitioner to reckon the initial date of appointment as 18th May, 1985, for the purpose of grant of benefit of selection grade on his completion of 9/18 years of service, is not supported by any rule or law. The judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. PWD Employees Union & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 417 ; has no application as the facts of the case at hand are entirely different from that of the case referred to and relied upon. Furthermore, the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. PWD Employees Union & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 417 ; has no application as the facts of the case at hand are entirely different from that of the case referred to and relied upon. Furthermore, the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Farooq Ahmed & 59 Ors.; WLC (Raj.) 2005(1) 1 , also has no application to the instant case at hand as the matter in those cases was with reference to the question on ad hoc service rendered by the employees. 11. The opinion of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Farooq Ahmed (supra), has been subjected to further scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Raj. & Ors. v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 ; reversing the decision, held thus: "8. It needs to be noted that there is no scope for raising an issue that executive instructions can override the rules. The law is to the contrary. The Notification dated 3.4.1993 speaks of "in accordance with recruitment rules". Clarification was necessary because of doubts regarding regular appointment. It is made clear that the period rendered in the existing cadre before regular employment in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules to the post is because of change of cadre the previous period is not counted so there is no question of giving the benefit to ad hoc employees and the appointment letters which were illustratively filed indicate that the appointments were till regular appointment was made. 9. Ad hoc appointment is not made in terms of the requirements of the rules. The benefit is extended to avoid stagnation. In case of ad hoc employees, stagnation is till the regularisation is made. The stress in the present case is on regular appointment to cadre/service. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the State, the High Court confused itself with appointment to post. The question of promotion arises only when appointment is a regular appointment. Appointment to the post is not relevant; on the other hand, what is relevant is the period relatable to the cadre of the service." 12. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the State, the High Court confused itself with appointment to post. The question of promotion arises only when appointment is a regular appointment. Appointment to the post is not relevant; on the other hand, what is relevant is the period relatable to the cadre of the service." 12. Thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that the claim of the petitioner, for reckoning the date as 18th May, 1985, as the date of initial appointment for the purpose of grant of selection grade after completion of 9/18 years of service, is absolutely misconceived. The question of promotion arises only when the appointment is regular appointment to a cadre and the relevant factor is the period relatable to the cadre of the service. Since ad-hoc/temporary appointment is not made in terms of recruitment Rules, the stagnation of such an employee is only till the regularisation is made. 13. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. The writ petition is devoid of any substance of and lacks in merit and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 15. Ordered accordingly. 16. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 17. In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay application stands closed.Petition dismissed. *******