Durga Shanker Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and Others

M.N. Bhandari, J.—1. With consent of the parties, writ petition is heard finally.

By this writ petition, a direction is sought on the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. It is submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as Chobdar in Temple Shri Kalyanram Ji, Baran on 15.1.1986. The petitioner was asked to discharge duties on part time basis but soon thereafter, he was asked to discharge duties for more than 8 hours a day. A period of more than 30 years has already passed, however, petitioner is paid only a sum of Rs. 3600/- per month presently. He is entitled for regularisation of his service which is of more than ten years, rather, thirty years, that too, without intervention of the court.

It is submitted that in a similar case, this court allowed writ petition of one Girraj Sharma in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1971/1998, vide order dated 20.5.2014. Therein, objection of the non-petitioners was that Chobdar, Pujari and others are governed by the Service Rules relating to the Staff of Self Supporting (Funded) Code of Wards Temples under the control and Superintendence of Devasthan Department, Rajasthan (for short "the Service Rules"). It was submitted that the petitioner getting remuneration from self supported fund thus not entitled for regularisation. This court did not accept the plea raised by the non-petitioners and granted relief. The case of the petitioner is thus covered by the judgment (supra). Hence, it may be applied to the present case also.

Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the petition. It is submitted that in the case of Girraj Sharma (supra), relief has been given to the employee, however, facts of this case are distinguishable. Therein, the employee was not working on part time basis, whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner was engaged only on part time basis. Looking to the fact aforesaid and part time working of the petitioner, he is not entitled for consideration of his case for regularisation.

It is also stated that it depends on the condition of the temple as rule 3 of the Service Rules make it clear that service conditions would be controlled by the aforesaid.

I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

This is second round of litigation by the petitioner. The first writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3331/1998 was disposed of by this court on 18.7.2006 with following directions-

"In any case, if the petitioner is entitled to get benefit under these rules, as discussed herein above, the respondent State is the only competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner.

Considering the case of the petitioner, it is expected from the State to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law and the rules, and if the petitioner is entitled for any benefit, the same may be extended in his favour.

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of."

On submission of the representation to the respondents after the judgment aforesaid, it was rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 8.6.2007.

The petitioner was engaged as Chobdar on part time basis in the year 1986, however, as stated by the petitioner, he was then asked to work for more than 8 hours. The period of service by now is nearly 30 years. The petitioner is continuously working with the respondents without intervention of the court.

The only dispute is about the status of the petitioner. According to the respondents, petitioner is working on part time basis thus not entitled for regularisation of his services. The reply to the writ petition refers about part time status of the petitioner but it does not indicate as to for how many hours petitioner works with the respondents. It is more so when in para 5 of the writ petition, it is specifically contended that petitioner is working for 8 hours. The facts therein have been controverted in reply but without specifying as to for how many hours petitioner works thus a vague reply has been given to the specific averment made in the writ petition.

It is further submitted by the respondents that it all depends on the status of the temple. After the judgment in the case of Girraj Sharma (supra), compliance thereof has been made without challenging it in an appeal. What was the status of the temple in the case of Girraj Sharma and in the present case has not been specified so as to justify action of the non-petitioners. In absence thereof, judgment in the case of Girraj Sharma (supra) would apply. Therein also, plea about engagement and payment through self supporting fund was considered and decided. When the respondents took a decision not to prefer an appeal against the said judgment, rather, it has been complied with by them, I do not find any justification not to apply the said judgment to the present case. Relevant part of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference -

"Upon considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner has been working on the post of Pujari since 01.11.1991. Thus, he has completed more than 20 years of service on that post. It is undisputed that he was initially paid a sum of Rs. 100/- per month as remuneration which was enhanced to Rs. 585/- per month. In the additional affidavit, the respondents have admitted the fact of continuation of the petitioner. There is also no dispute that the petitioner was being discharging his duties without intervention of any Court or without there being any interim order in his favour. It is also not disputed that apart from duties of Pujari, the petitioner has to render services during the entire year. He has been assigned duties at other places especially during Melas etc. which is substantiated by number of documents produced by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularising his services. Even though, the Service Rules Relating to the Staff of Self Supporting(Funded) Court of Wards Temples under the Control and Superintendence of Devasthan Department, Rajasthan are applicable to the petitioner, but despite that effective control on the working of the petitioner is that of Devsthan Department, which is evident from the documents produced by the petitioner. In fact, it is borne out from order dated 30.09.2004 (Annexure-A/6) that the petitioner was transferred from Bundi to Kota. Another order was issued by Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Kota, Division Kota on 16.02.2005, whereby he was assigned duties from 2.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. in the Office during Budget Session of Assembly to provide information in answer to any question that was to be made in the Assembly. Orders dated 16.09.1995, 07.12.1996 indicate that the post of Pujari has been created in regular pay scale of Rs. 750-12-798-13-850-15-940. Now, the petitioner is discharging his duties in the service of the respondents for last 23 years, thus, the respondents ought to have considered his case for regularization in service in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (Supra)."

In the judgment referred above, issue of Service Rules has been considered. Looking to the facts given above, I find merit in the writ petition.

In the result, writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services and pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.