Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sarjito vs State & Anr on 16 April, 2009
1
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2495/1996
Smt. Sarjito Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Order :: 16.04.2009
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr Pradeep Choudhary for Mr. P.P. Choudhary,
for the petitioner/s.
Mr M.A. Siddiqui, for the respondents.
...
The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Indira Gandhi Canal Project,
Hanumangarh under an office order dated 30.3.1992 declared an
eligibility list of the work charged employees completing 10 or 2 years of
continuous service. In the order aforesaid name of the petitioner
appears at S.No. 54 with 1.4.1988 as the date on which semi permanent
status was conferred upon her and 1.4.1996 as the date on which
permanent status was given. Pertinent to note here that an employee
working in work charged cadre of the Department of Forest becomes
entitled to be considered for grant of semi permanent status on
completion of two years of service as per the provisions of Certified
Standing Orders of 1973. The Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Hanumangarh by notice dated 25.8.1995 informed the petitioner that
on scrutiny she was not found fit for grant of semi permanent status,
and therefore, an opportunity was given to her to explain as to why the
status already given be not withdrawn. As per the explanation
submitted by the petitioner on 31.8.1995, she was in continuous
2
employment of Forest Department since 1982, and as such, semi
permanent status was rightly granted to her w.e.f. 1.4.1988 under the
order dated 30.3.1992. The petitioner after submitting the explanation
as said above approached this Court by way of filing the present petition
for writ giving challenge to decision of the respondents as referred in
the notice dated 25.8.1995.
A reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents
stating therein that the semi permanent status was erroneously granted
to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1988 under an order dated 30.3.1992 on the
count that initially the petitioner was working in certain schemes under
the planned budget as such that period was wrongly taken into
consideration while conferring semi permanent status. The respondents
also stated that services of the petitioner were utilized for
departmental purposes in the month of April 1991, and therefore, as a
matter of fact, she became entitled for grant of semi permanent status
on 1.4.1993 only.
A rejoinder is filed by the petitioner, in general reiterating
whatever already stated in the petition for writ. . A copy of the order
dated 31.3.1997 is also placed on record whereby the semi permanent
status granted to the petitioner under the order dated 30.3.1992 was
withdrawn.
3
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was working with the Forest Department since 1982, and
therefore, she was entitled to be considered for grant of semi
permanent status much back in the year 1984 itself. It is also pointed
out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur under a letter
dated 6.9.2000 (Annex.P/8) clarified that the services rendered by a
workman under the Schemes viz. NREP, RLEGP, JRY or under Feminine
Relief Work is required to be taken into consideration while considering
candidature of such workman for grant of semi permanent status. The
relevant portion of the letter dated 6.9.2000 reads as follows:
"क यद क स र र पथर न यक ए आर ई प ,
आर एल ई ज प , ज आर व ई य अ ल र हत य पर
ई ह त उस पथर न यक नतथथ उ य# (ए
आर ई प आद ) पर न यक पथर द वस स र
ज वग अथ त % ऐस य ज ओ( पर गय सव वथ) पथर
न यक नतथथ पय ज थ सम+रललत ज वग ।
अथ त ए आई ई प /आरएल ई ज प आद य ज ओ(
पर न यक प र+., रधय अथव अनत र1 . .
य क य ह , वह अवथ) पथर न यक नतथथ न ) रण
र1 सम+रललत ह ग , च ह ए .आर.ई.प .आर.एल.ई.ज .प .
य अवथ) रगलर य बच ह5( ह र, प र+.
ह5 ह और . . ह ।"
4
From perusal of the instructions issued by office of the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest, it is apparent that the services rendered by
a workman under the schemes like NREP, RLEGP, JRY are required to be
taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of semi permanent
status under the Certified Standing Orders of 1973. Beside that, a
person working on casual basis in various schemes of the forest
department is certainly required to be treated as a casual workman of
the department. Merely, on the count that his services were utilized by
the department for some time under a scheme by no way deprive him
from getting benefits under the Certified Standing Orders of 1973.
Pertinent to note here that entire work charged cadre itself is operated
under the planned budget, and as such, the persons serving in a scheme
subsequently taken on work charged cadre of the department concerned
and a person directly employed in work charge cadre stands at same
pedestal.
In view of whatever stated above, the respondents were wrong in
withdrawing semi permanent status granted to the petitioner by
excluding the service given by her under Government Scheme.
Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order
withdrawing semi permanent status granted to the petitioner w.e.f.
1.4.1988 is declared illegal, and therefore, the same is quashed. The
5
order dated 30.3.1992 granting semi permanent status to the petitioner
w.e.f. 1.4.1988 stands restored. The respondents are directed to grant
all consequential benefits to the petitioner by treating her a semi
permanent work charged employee with the respondent department
w.e.f. 1.4.1988. No order as to costs.
(GOVIND MATHUR), J.
Jgoyal’