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status already given be not withdrawn.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’