Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1856 (RAJ)

Ram Lal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

2016-12-20

ALOK SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Beldar on 1-11-1985, but his service was terminated on 31-7-1987. The termination became the subject matter of an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947') and was referred by the State Government under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide award dated 24-10-1997 held that the petitioner's termination on 31-7-1987 was neither legal nor proper but in contravention of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. He was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service as also back wages @ Rs. 2000/- per year during which he suffered the illegal termination. A challenge to the award aforesaid was made before a Single Judge of this court in writ petition No. 1829/1998, which came to be dismissed on 27-8-1998. The department then preferred DB Civil Special Appeal No. 231/1999, which came to be decided on 23-7-2003 and while sustaining the award dated 24-10-1997 and largely the judgment of the Single Judge dated 27-8-1998 on reinstatement and continuity of service, it was directed on concession of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages. 2. Resultantly the petitioner was reinstated in service as Beldar vide order dated 23-3-2004 and has been since so working. The petitioner was thereafter declared semi permanent w.e.f. 22-7-2005 vide order dated 26-5-2006 issued by the Assistant Engineer PWD (NH) Sub Division Tonk. Dissatisfied with the date of conferment of semi permanent status and its spillover to potential delays in declaration as a permanent under the Work charged Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1964') this petition has been filed. 3. Mr. D.C. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner submitted that albeit as per concession of counsel for the petitioner before the Division Bench on 23-7-2003 in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 231/1999 the petitioner is not entitled to back wages, yet other benefits under the award dated 24-10-1997 passed by the Labour Court as of reinstatement and continuity of service as a result of the termination dated 31-7-1987 being set aside, necessarily accrue to the petitioner for the reason that these aspects of the award attained finality. In the circumstances, the petitioner having been appointed as Beldar on 1-11-1985 was entitled to semi permanent status on completion of two years i.e. 1-11-1987 and permanent status on completion of ten years i.e. 1-11-1995 in terms of Rule 3(3) of the Work charged Service Rules, 1964. Therefore declaring the petitioner semi permanent from 22-7-2005 following his reinstatement on 23-3-2004 is most arbitrary and illegal. This action is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside and appropriate directions issued. It has been submitted that the petitioner should be directed to be conferred semi permanent status from 1-11-1987 on completion of two years service from the date of his initial appointment on 1-11-1985 and permanent status on completion of ten years service from the said date. 4. Opposing the writ petition, Dr. A.S. Khangarot appearing for the respondent department has submitted that the petitioner was appointed in service only on 23-3-2004 following the judgment dated 23-7-2003 passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 231/1999. That appointment partakes the character of a fresh appointment, and as such the petitioner was entitled for conferment of semi permanent and permanent status on completion of two years and ten years respectively commencing 23-3-2004. It was further submitted that although the petitioner has been reinstated pursuant to award dated 24-10-1997, it automatically did not revive his appointment first made on 1-11-1985 on the post of Beldar under the Rules of 1964 or entitlement for conferment of semi permanent and permanent status without proof of satisfactory service for the period in issue. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. I find no force in the contention of Dr. A.S. Khangarot that for the conferment of semi permanent and permanent status on completion of two years and ten years service of a workman appointed on casual basis under the Rules of 1964, he has to satisfy the department with regard to his satisfactory service and is not entitled to such status on the mere lapse of requisite time. The argument is in the cross hairs of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Naurang Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2004(5) WLC (Raj.) 156]. The argument is in the cross hairs of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Naurang Ram v. State of Rajasthan [2004(5) WLC (Raj.) 156]. Therein the Division Bench held that under Work charged Service Rules, 1964, for denial of conferment of the status of semi permanent and permanent workman on completion of two years and ten years of service respectively, it is upon the department to establish that the service of the workman were not satisfactory. It was held that no inference of unsatisfactory service can be drawn against the workman to deny the status of semi permanent and permanent after two and ten years of service, merely because despite his initial appointment conferment of semi permanent status was delayed. It was held that it was for the competent authority to prove as to why the conferment of semi permanent status did not follow automatically on completion of two years continuous service by placing on record cogent material with regard to the allegedly unsatisfactory service of the workman. The court held that unless cogent material is shown for proving the service of workman was not satisfactory, semi permanent status has to follow almost as a rule at the end of two years service and permanent status at the end of ten years service following the initial appointment of the employee under the Rules of 1964. 7. In the instant case the petitioner was appointed as Beldar on 1-11-1985. His termination order dated 31-7-1987 was set aside by the Labour Court vide award dated 24-10-1997. That award has been upheld by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of this court in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 231/1999 vide order dated 23-7-2003, except on the issue of back wages on the concession of counsel for the petitioner. The right of the petitioner to be employed as a Work charged beldar effective his appointment dated 1-11-1985 and continuity of service effective the said date has been upheld. In the circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to semi permanent and permanent status on completion of two years and ten service reckoned from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1-11-1985. I am of the considered view that the petitioner's reinstatement on 23-3-2004 following the judgment dated 23-7-2003 passed by the Division Bench was not a fresh appointment but continuation of his appointment as a Beldar on 1-11-1985. I am of the considered view that the petitioner's reinstatement on 23-3-2004 following the judgment dated 23-7-2003 passed by the Division Bench was not a fresh appointment but continuation of his appointment as a Beldar on 1-11-1985. He was thus entitled to semi permanent and permanent status after having worked for requisite period from the date of his initial appointment on 1-11-1985. The petitioner's reinstatement on 23-3-2004 would relate to his initial appointment on 1-11-1985. Consequently, unless the department is able to prove that the petitioner's service was unsatisfactory he would be entitled for semi permanent and permanent status from the date of his initial appointment 1-11-1985 on completion of two years and ten years service respectively. 8. Consequently the impugned order dated 26-5-2006 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is declared to be entitled to semi permanent and permanent status on completion of two years and ten years service from the date of his initial appointment on 1-11-1985. The case of the petitioner be accordingly considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in the context of state of law and facts as detailed hereinabove. 9. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.