Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 35 (RAJ)

Prakash Chandra Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Store Munshi w.e.f. the date he is initially working on the ministerial cadre and pay consequential benefits. 2. It is, inter-alia, submitted in the writ petition that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Helper on 1.1.1989 with the respondent-Department, where he worked till 31.12.1989 and from 1.1.1990 to 28.2.1995, it is claimed that by order dated 14.8.2000, the petitioner has been deputed to work for the ministerial work and has been working in the office of respondent No.4. 3. Further submissions have been made that by order dated 15.4.2007, similarly situated persons have been promoted on the post of Store Munshi as semi permanent and have been allowed pay scale of 950-1640, however, the name of the petitioner was not included. It is claimed that similarly situated persons have filed writ petition being Hem Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6423/2008, which came to be allowed by order dated 21.10.2009, wherein, similarly situated petitioners were declared entitled to be conferred with semi permanent status as Store Munshi from the date they completed two years of service from the date of their initial appointment and all consequential benefits. It is prayed that the petitioner is also entitled to a similar relief. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that judgment in the case of Hem Singh (supra) was challenged and in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 546/2014 (State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Anil Acharya) and Other Special Appeals, on account of the fact that respondent had started exercise of screening the persons like the petitioners, orders therein have been passed and the petitioner would also be governed by the said orders. 5. Further submissions have been made that looking to the factual dispute involved in the matter, the petitioner must approach the Labour Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. In the case of Anil Acharya (supra) the Division Bench, inter-alia, observed and directed as under:- "20. Further submissions have been made that looking to the factual dispute involved in the matter, the petitioner must approach the Labour Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. In the case of Anil Acharya (supra) the Division Bench, inter-alia, observed and directed as under:- "20. We find that since the exercise of screening and to weed out those persons, who were not entitled to the benefits as have been given in Hem Singh's case, has already been initiated and that the list of eligible persons, after screening, has already been forwarded to the State Government, it is not necessary for this Court to examine each and every case for his/their entitlement to the benefits to be given in accordance with judgment of Hem Singh. 21. We make it clear that Hem Singh's case was decided on the findings that the petitioners in those cases were either employed initially on the post of Store Munshi in Work Charge Establishment of Public Health & Engineering Department or they were allowed to work subsequently as Store Munshi and that they were entitled to be granted semi permanent status after completing two years of service and permanent status after completing 10 years of service. On the facts, as they were given in Hem Singh's case, it was decided that all such persons were entitled to consequential benefits of working on the post of Store Munshi. The benefits, however, had to be given from the date, they were working as Store Munshi and for which, they should be eligible and have not received any promotion in their field, such as Pump Driver or Fitter. 22. Now since the screening is in process and the report of the Screening Committee is under consideration of the State government, we do not propose to examine each and every case for ascertaining the facts as to whether the respondents are entitled to be given benefits and whether they will be entitled to any arrears. Any decision taken by the State Government will abide by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the Special Leave to Appeal, in which, notices have been confined to payment of arrears prior to 2007 or of any orders, which the Supreme Court, pass on an application, which the State Government proposes to move. 23. Any decision taken by the State Government will abide by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the Special Leave to Appeal, in which, notices have been confined to payment of arrears prior to 2007 or of any orders, which the Supreme Court, pass on an application, which the State Government proposes to move. 23. We are informed that the Work Charge Rules of 1964 have, since, been repealed and that the Work Charge Establishments have been abolished, and thus, the State Government must, find out the corresponding employment and pay scales to be applicable to Store Munshi, in which the respondents, if they are entitled and eligible after screening, may be absorbed or regularised, in terms of the judgment of Hem Singh's case. 24. On the aforesaid discussion, all these special appeals are disposed of with directions that the respondents will be entitled to the benefit of Division Bench judgment in Hem Singh's case, only after and subject to the Screening to be carried out for weeding out the persons, who were either not eligible or have received promotions in their own trade other than the trade of Store Munshi. It goes without saying that this judgment will be subject to the judgment of Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18046/2012. There shall be no orders as to costs." 7. In view of the directions of the Division Bench, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief i.e. the case of the petitioner may be screened by the respondents in terms of the directions given in the case of Anil Acharya (supra) and if he is entitled to the benefits, he may also be accorded the said benefits. 8. So far as the submission made by counsel for the respondent pertaining to approaching the Labour Court is concerned, the respondents themselves are required to examine the record of the petitioner and arrive at a finding and, therefore, there is no necessity for the petitioner to approach the Labour Court for the said purpose. 9. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of directing the respondents to deal with the case of the petitioner in accordance with the directions given in the case of Anil Acharya (supra). 10. 9. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of directing the respondents to deal with the case of the petitioner in accordance with the directions given in the case of Anil Acharya (supra). 10. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.