Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 688 (RAJ)

Bheru Lal Dangi v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-06

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 13/9/2013 (Annex.15) passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner seeking pay scale of Rs. 775-940 has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was appointed under the Work-charged Rules and after completing three years of service, he was granted semi-permanent status in the year 1989. Whereafter, by order dated 28/2/1994 the State Government took a decision to absorb the work-charged employees as regular employee in a phased manner, whereafter, by order dated 20/6/1994 (Annex.6), the petitioner along with 39 other employees was declared regular and it was also indicated that the employees would be entitled to salary and other benefits in terms of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ('the RSR'). Another order dated 28/3/1995 was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Mines, indicating that all employees engaged under the Work-charged Rules/order and who have rendered two years of continuous and satisfactory services shall be converted into regular employees w.e.f. 1/1/1995 and would be brought under the purview of RSR. 3. By order dated 15/10/1997 (Annex.8), it was ordered that the post of the petitioner would be that of Lab Boy and he would be entitled to pay scale of Rs. 750-940. The petitioner relying upon the case of one Kailash Chand Khateek claimed the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 which was not accepted, therefore, he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8075/2011, which was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation raising all the grievances and the respondents were directed to decide the same. 750-940. The petitioner relying upon the case of one Kailash Chand Khateek claimed the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 which was not accepted, therefore, he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8075/2011, which was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation raising all the grievances and the respondents were directed to decide the same. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner filed a detailed representation, which was decided by the impugned order dated 13/9/2013 (Annex.15) inter-alia with the following observations: ^^vihykFkhZ ds Kkiu ij iw.kZ fopkj ,oa ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA Jh Hks#yky Mkaxh] yscckW; odZpktZ fu;fer deZpkjh gSA tcfd vU; yscckW; fu;fer in ij dk;Zjr gSA 'kklu ds i= Øekad iŒ 4¼8½ [kku@xzqi&1@87 fnukad 07-03-2001 ds vUrxZr foRr foHkkx dh fVIi.kh bl Ádkj gS fd ^^dk;Z ÁHkkfjr deZpkfj;ksa ds osrueku fu;eksa ds vuqlkj yscckW; ds in dk osrueku 750&940 gh gSA vr% yscckW; ds in ij dk;Z ÁHkkfjr deZpkfj;ksa dk osrueku 775&940 nsus dk Á'u ugha mBrkA** Jh Hks#yky Mkaxh] yscckW; dk le;≤ ij iqujhf{kr osrueku blh vuq:i fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;kA vihykFkhZ dh O;fDrxr lquokbZ rRdkyhu funs'kd egksn; ds le{k fnukad 11-10-2012 dks gks xbZ gSA pwafd Jh Mkaxh tks fd 750&940 dh osru J`a[kyk esa osru ÁkIr dj jgs FksA rnkuqlkj iqujhf{kr osruekuksa esa osru fuEu Ádkj fu;r fd;k x;k iqujhf{kr osrueku] 1998 esa osru J`a[kyk 2550&55&2660&60&3200 esa fnukad 01-09-1996 dks fjokbZt is Ldsy 2550&55&2660&60&3200 esa fnukad 01-09-1996 dks jkf'k :i;s 2660@& ij osru fu;r fd;k x;kA 9 o"khZ; p;fur osrueku osru J`a[kyk 2610&60&3150&65&3540 esa ewy osru :i;s 2850@& fnukad 04-01-1998 dks fu;r fd;k x;kA 18 o"khZ; p;fur osrueku osru J`a[kyk 2650&65&3300&70&4000 esa :i;s 3510@& 04-01-2008 dks fu;r fd;k x;kA iqujhf{kr osrueku 2008 esa jfuax is cS.M 1 ,l 4750&7440$1400 xzsM is esa :i;s 7630@& ij fnukad 01-09-2006 dks fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;kA bl Ádkj Jh HkS:yky Mkaxh] odZpktZ deZpkjh dks ns; leLr ifjykHk fu;ekuqlkj gh fn;s x;s gSA** 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner by observing that the pay scale of Work-charged employees for the post of Lab Boy was Rs. 750-940 and he was not entitled to grant of pay scale of Rs. 775-1025. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner by observing that the pay scale of Work-charged employees for the post of Lab Boy was Rs. 750-940 and he was not entitled to grant of pay scale of Rs. 775-1025. It is further submitted that once the order dated 20/6/1994 was passed by the respondents, declaring the petitioner as regular employee and entitled to benefit of pay and other benefits under the RSR, there was no occasion for the respondents to deny the benefit of pay scale of Lab Boy and the grant of pay scale, which was subsequently revised from time to time, as a Work-charged Lab Boy is ex facie illegal. 5. It was prayed that the order impugned be quashed and respondents be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 to the petitioner with all consequential revisions etc. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the services of the petitioner along with other Work-charged employees were governed by the Mines & Geology Department Work Charge Employees (Service Condition) Rules, 1975 ('the Rules, 1975') and not by the RSR and as the post of Lab Boy under the Work-charged cadre carries the pay scale of Rs. 750-940, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to pay scale of Rs. 775-1025. It was submitted that insofar as the case of Kailash Chand Khateek was concerned, said Kailash Chand Khateek was governed by the regular cadre of Lab Boy category and, therefore, he was granted pay scale of Rs. 775-1025. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. A bare look at the entire material indicates that though the petitioner was initially employed as Work-charged employee, by order dated 20/6/1994 he was declared as regular employee along with several others and it was specially indicated that he will be entitled to salary and other benefits under the RSR. 9. Qua order Annex.6, it is indicated in the reply by the respondents that by the said order, the petitioner was declared as 'regular Work-charged employee'. 9. Qua order Annex.6, it is indicated in the reply by the respondents that by the said order, the petitioner was declared as 'regular Work-charged employee'. The said plea raised in reply is ex facie incorrect inasmuch as the order dated 20/6/1994 (Annex.6) is explicit and indicates that the Work-charged employees were declared as regular and would be entitled to pay and other benefits under the RSR, therefore, the said plea raised in this regard cannot be countenanced. 10. The decision on the petitioner's representation vide order dated 13/9/2013 (Annex.15) indicating that as the petitioner is only a regular Work-charged Lab Boy, the pay scale granted to him was appropriate is also apparently incorrect as the order does not take into consideration the order dated 20/6/1994 (Annex.6). 11. In view of the above, the order dated 13/9/2013 (Annex.15) passed by the respondents cannot be sustained. 12. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the order dated 13/9/2013 (Annex.15) is quashed and set aside, the petitioner is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 with all consequences flowing from the said pay scale including the revised pay scales etc. 13. The needful be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date the certified copy of this order is placed before them.