IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS VS BAJRANG SINGH (DB SPECIAL APPEAL (W)NO. 817/09.) DATE OF JUDGMENT : 3rd AUGUST, 2011. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG for the State-appellants. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE BELA M. TRIVEDI,J.)
Heard Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG for the appellants. The delay of 164 days occurred in preferring the present appeal is condoned, for the reasons stated in the application. The office is directed to register the appeal.
In this intra court appeal, the appellants (original respondents) have assailed th order dated 16.9.08 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 6135/92, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to declare the status of the present respondent (original petitioner) as semi permanent on the post of Store Munshi, on the minimum pay-scale of 490/- with all allowances from the date when his juniors were given i.e. from 1.4.85 and to pay the back wages within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
It was the case of the respondent (petitioner) before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was working on daily wages basis since 19.1.1981 in Public Health & Engineering Department and was posted at Ramgarh Shekhawati in District Sikar ; that the persons junior to the petitioner had been declared semi permanent on the post of Store Munshi and were given regular pay-scale of Rs. 490-10-550 and some were also posted as Store Munshi in regular pay-scale ; that subsequently the petitioner was posted as Assistant on 1.6.90, however, he was again reverted to the post of Store Munshi on the daily wages basis. It was also alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner was discriminated from amongst the persons who were similarly situated, inasmuch as the respondents had given the benefit of regularisation to the persons like Kishan Lal and Kailash Chandra Sharma and others who were juniors to the petitioner and the petitioner was not given the same treatment as those persons.
It appears that when the petition had come up for hearing on 30.8.05, the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner were already granted to him and, therefore, the court had ordered interalia that if all the reliefs were not granted to the petitioner, he could file a detailed representation and that the respondents may pass a reasoned order on such representation of the petitioner. Lateron, the petitioner filed an application for revival of the writ petition as the grievances of the petitioner raised in the petition were not accepted by the respondents. The respondents in the petition, had contested the said writ petition by contending interalia that the petitioner was temporarily appointed on daily wages vide order dated 14.2.85 by the Selection Committee after holding interview of the persons whose names were received from the District Employment Exchange. It was further contended that the persons who were appointed on Muster Roll and completed two years were granted minimum pay-scale of Assistant and the petitioner was declared semi permanent on the post of Assistant on 19.6.1987 and thereafter was confirmed on the post of Assistant on 30th May, 1990. The respondents had denied that the petitioner was discriminated against the persons similarly situated.
The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the parties allowed the said petition vide the impugned order dated 16.9.08 by holding interalia that the petitioner was deprived of his dues of being given the proper status in service, and also the pay-scale as was granted to the other persons like Kishan Lal, Kailash Chandra Sharma etc. and that the said inaction on the part of the respondents had infringed the rights of the petitioner enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single judge, the appellants have preferred this intra court appeal before this court.
It has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General Shri Dinesh Yadav for the State that the learned Single judge has relied upon the order dated 15.4.07 for regularisation of the services of the petitioner, however the said order has been superseded by the other order dated 27.10.07 and further guidelines have also been issued on 12.9.08 for the creation and appointment on the post of Store Munshi. According to Mr. Yadav the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of the said guidelines and, therefore, would not be entitled for the regularisation and consequential benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge.
At the outset the submission made by Mr. Yadav deserves tobe rejected for the simple reason that neither the order dated 27.10.07 issued by the concerned department of the appellants superseding the order dated 15.4.07 nor the guidelines dated 12.9.08 were placed before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the learned Single Judge did not have any occasion to consider the same. It is further pertinent to note that though the guidelines as referred to by the learned Addl. Advocate General were of the date 12.9.08, prior to the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 16.9.08, no endeavour was made on behalf of the appellants to bring to the notice of the learned Single Judge any of such guidelines. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to say that the directions given by learned Single Judge is contrary to the said guidelines or the order subsequently issued by the department. Even otherwise it appears that the learned Single Judge has considered the case of the respondent-petitioner in detail as to how he was discriminated from amongst the persons similarly situated. The appellants had failed to point out before the learned Single Judge as to how Kishan Lal, who was appointed after the petitioner, was given status of Store Munshi with effect from 19.6.86 vide the order dated 15.4.07. The said Kishan Lal was also working in Fatehpur Division of the appellants department, and was junior to the petitioner as revealed from the chart issued by the Asstt. Engineer, PHED (Annex.4). There was no justification submitted by the appellants before the learned Single Judge in that regard. Similarly one Kailash Chandra Sharma, who was appointed after the petitioner and who was also discriminated from amongst the persons similarly situated had to approach the High Court by way of filing writ petition being No. 1624/96, and the High Court, considering the cases of Ramdayal Mathur and Shanker Lal Sharma, who were similarly situated as that of Kailash Chandra Sharma and who were appointed after the present petitioner, had directed the appellants to give same status to the said Kailash Chandra as that of his juniors and also to give him regular pay-sacle. The learned Single Judge thus considering the said cases had found that the appellants had given discriminatory treatment to the petitioner in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and had deprived the petitioner of his dues by not giving proper status in service and also the pay scale.
Mr. Yadav, learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellants has miserably failed to point out any infirmity in the said order passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the present intra court appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI ) J. ( ARUN MISHRA ) CJ. MRG
