IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4315/1997. Shiv Kumar Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- March 11, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Karan Pal Singh for the petitioners. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition was filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the respondents be directed to modify the orders dated 9/6/1995 and 22/6/1996 by which, semi-permanent status conferred upon them with effect from arbitrary chosen date of 31/12/1994 rather then the date from which, each one of them actually completed period of two years working as Beldar.
2) Shri Karan Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited atleast six judgments of the co-ordinate Benches of this Court where these Courts have consistently held in respect of similar department i.e. Public Health Engineering Department that Beldars would be entitled to semi-permanent status upon completion of period of two years in terms of Rule 3(3) of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (Building & Road) Including Gardens, Irrigation, Water and Ayurvedic Department Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 with all consequential benefits and that they would be entitled to emoluments of salary at par to what is being paid to such Beldars who were declared semi-permanent or were already declared permanent.
3) Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that conferment of semi-permanency is not automatic on completion of period of two years and in view of Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1964, it has to be only with the prior sanction of the competent authority. Learned counsel referring to sub-rules (2) & (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 argued that the Rules merely provide that a work-charge employee who has been in service for ten or two years, as the case may be, shall be eligible for semi-permanent status. That provision merely confers eligibility and not automatic vested right to be treated or deemed to have been declared semi-permanent work charge employee. Learned counsel submitted that there is a procedure in the respondents where cases of such eligible persons are scrutinized and if their services are found satisfactory, they can be granted semi-permanent status as also the date chosen by the competent authority. Learned counsel for respondents argued that services of petitioners for the purpose of Rule 3(3) supra were counted only from 31/3/1994 and upon completion of two years from that date, they were conferred semi permanent status w.e.f. 1/1/1995 and accordingly paid the benefits thereof.
4) Shri Karan Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners rejoined and submitted that the impugned-order passed by the respondents is bad because the order states that petitioners wold be entitled to the benefits only from 1/1/1995 and not from the earlier date and this is because respondents deliberately did not grant the benefit of semi permanency to the petitioners immediately upon completion of two years. This Court in all the cited cases held such practice bad and directed respondent-department to confer semi permanent status upon the employees concerned soon upon completion of two years and also grant them all consequential benefits.
5) Although it may be true that conferment of semi-permanent status is not automatic and in other words, such status does not on its own follow completion of two years as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondents in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 supra, such status could be conferred with prior sanction of the competent authority. However, at the same time, it is not reflected from the reply submitted by the respondents or even during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the respondents as to on what basis, 31/3/1994 was chosen with effect from which, period of two years envisaged in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, shall be counted. Even though status of semi permanent was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 9/6/1995 which indicates the date of initial appointment of the petitioners and if period of two years from the actual date of appointment of the petitioners is computed, they would be completed four years long years before on 1/1/1995. Contention that since sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 merely confer eligibility on the work charge employee, conferment of status of semi permanency is not automatic upon completion of two years, has to be appreciated in the light of the reason why the respondents decided not to confer upon the employees concerned benefit of semi permanency even after completion of two years. Only exception that is carved out in sub-rule(3) of Rule is that either the employees covered by sub-rule (1) would not be eligible for such status or service records of such employees are not found satisfactory by the competent authority. In such circumstances, when no such stand was taken by the respondents with regard to any of the petitioner, action of the respondents that the petitioners should be granted semi permanent status only from the date which the respondents think fit to be the correct date, cannot be upheld because there is no reason or basis for which they should deviate from their own practice conferring semi permanent status on completion of two years of service and once on that basis the semi permanency is determined and the matter is under judicial scrutiny before this Court, they are under obligation to explain to the court as to what is sanctity of the date 31/3/1994 from which, period of two years envisaged under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, would commence and the entire services rendered by the petitioners which the respondents themselves admitted, for much earlier period shall be ignored here. In any case, in number of judgments cited by the learned counsel for petitioners in Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.4316/97) decided on 21/8/98, Kishori Lal and & Ors. Vs. The Chief Engineer PHED & Ors. (SBCWP No.331/94) decided on 28/1/1994, Bharat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.3874/95) decided on 21/8/1996, Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. The Chief Engineer PHED & Ors. (SBCWP No.1200/94), Narendra Singh & Ors. Vs. The Chief Engineer PHED & Ors. (SBCWP No.1201/94) decided on 9/3/1994 and Murarilal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.1142/94) decided on 9/3/1994, and Hon’ble co-ordinate Benches of this Court have held that the petitioners are entitled to status of semi permanency under the work charged rules on completion of two years with consequential benefits.
6) I am not persuaded to take any contrary view what has been taken by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the aforesaid cases nor I find any special reason to deviate from these judgments merely because this matter has remained pending for a considerably long time.
7) In the result, writ petition is allowed. Petitioners are held entitled to semi-permanent status immediately upon their completion of service of two years with all consequential benefits.
8) Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
ani