Durga Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—The petitioner entered in the services of the respondents on 01.9.1993 as a casual workman in work-charge cadre. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Production Sub-Division, Udaipur by an order dt. 12.09.1995 declared the petitioner as a skilled workman. By another order dt. 20.03.1998 the petitioner was declared semi-permanent work-charge employee in the cadre of Beldar w.e.f. 01.05.1996. Semi-permanent status was conferred w.e.f. 01.05.1996 by treating the petitioner''s date of initial appointment as 01.05.1994. Subsequent thereto a decision was taken by the State Government to accord appointment on the post of Helper to all the Beldars. Accordingly necessary details of the petitioner were remitted to the competent authority by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Udaipur Circle, Udaipur under a letter dt. 26.9.2008. No decision with regard to appoint the petitioner as Helper is yet taken by the respondents, although, certain other similarly situated work-charge employees have already been treated as Helper in the Office of Superintending Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Udaipur Circle, Udaipur. This fact is substantiated by placing reliance upon office-order dt. 6.10.2008 (Annex. 4). The grievance of the petitioner is that he was working in work-charge cadre of the respondents since 01.1.1993, therefore, he is entitled to be declared semi-permanent w.e.f. 02.9.1995 as per Rule 3 of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B & R), Including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 1964''). It is further submitted that the petitioner was declared a skilled workman under the office-order dt. 12.09.1995, therefore, semi-permanent status to him should have been granted on the post of Helper from inception i.e. on completion of two years of service i.e. 02.09.1995.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents. According to the respondents the petitioner remained in their employment from 01.09.1993 to 13.04.1994 and thereafter has stopped coming on duty and thereafter he again reported to the duties on 01.05.1994, as such, his date of initial appointment is treated as 01.05.1994. By treating the date aforesaid as the date of his initial appointment, semi-permanent status was granted to the petitioner. The fact about awarding wages of Rs. 34/- per day by treating the petitioner as skilled workman under the office-order dt. 12.09.1995 has not been denied.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner as already stated was employed as a casual workman in work-charge cadre of Public Health and Engineering Department on 01.09.1993 and was declared as a skilled workman under the office-order dt. 12.09.1995. In the order dt. 12.09.1995 the date of initial appointment of the petitioner is treated as 01.09.1993, as such, the fact that the petitioner was re-employed on 01.05.1994 is per-se wrong. As a matter of fact the respondents in reply to the writ petition mentioned about absence of the petitioner from 13.04.1994 to 30.04.1994 but nothing on the basis of that it cannot be presumed that the petitioner''s services came to an end after 13.04.1994 and he was re-employed on 01.05.1994. The respondents themselves under the order dt. 12.09.1995 treated 01.09.1993 as the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. No other date as a matter of fact looking to the facts of the case could have been treated as the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. By treating 01.09.1993 as the date of initial appointment of the petitioner he became eligible to be considered for grant of semi-permanent status as skilled workman on completion of two years of service on 02.09.1995. The respondents, therefore, erred while awarding semi-permanent status to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.1996. The next question that requires consideration is with regard to the post on which semi-permanent status to the petitioner should have been granted. As per the office-order dt. 12.09.1995 the petitioner was working as a skilled workman with the respondents. The post of Beldar is not a skilled post but is an unskilled one. The petitioner was treated as a skilled workman with a pay of Rs. 34/- per day and that was the pay prescribed for the post of Helper and, as such, the petitioner as a matter of fact was working with the respondents in the capacity of Helper. Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves acceptance, hence is allowed. The respondents are directed to confer semi-permanent status upon the petitioner w.e.f. 02.09.1995 on the post of Helper. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.