Mohan Lal Bunkar vs State and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This writ petition has been preferred by Mohan Lal Bunkar inter alia with the prayer that the respondents be directed to grant him semi permanent status and permanent status on completion of two and ten years of service respectively from the date of initial appointment under Rule 3(2) and 3(3) of the Irrigation (Water Works, Ayurvedic & Forest Department),Work Charged Service Rules, 1964 and pay all the consequential benefit including the arrears.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis by order of the Deputy Director, Ayurved Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 28.11.1983. He continued to work with them till he was removed from services on 19.1.1985. An industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the question of correctness of his removal. The Labour Court, Jaipur vide award dated 8.9.1993 directed his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated in service. The respondents again started paying him remuneration on daily wage basis. Petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 3111/1995 claiming benefit of regular pay scale. This Court by judgment dated 2.4.1997 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner the salary at the minimum of the regular pay scale of Ward Boy with effect from March, 1995.

Shri Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been continuously working with the respondents. He was initially appointed on 28.11.1983. The respondents are under obligation to confer semi permanent status to him on completion of two years of service on 28.11.1985 and permanent status on completion of ten years of service on 28.11.1993 from the date of initial appointment i.e. 28.11.1983. It is argued that the persons junior to the petitioner, who were appointed much after him viz. Nathu Lal, Chhagan Singh, Bhagwan Sahay, Sita Ram, Rajendra Kumar, Prabhu Narain, Hari Narain and Ram Narayan were declared semi permanent on the post of Ward Boy in the year 1986-87 itself and they started getting regular pay scale from that year. However, petitioner has been deprived of such benefits from the year 1986 itself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced for perusal of the Court a copy of the award dated 20.9.2007 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in identical case of Kailash Chand Sharma, Case No. ITR 49/2002 and argued that the worker in that case was held entitled to semi permanent and permanent status on completion of two years and ten years of Section under Rule 3(2) and (3) of the Work Charge Rules, 1964. When the compliance of the aforesaid judgment was not made, the said Kailash Chand Sharma approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 2017/2009. This Court by judgment dated 4.10.2010 allowed the writ petition on the respondents admitting that they have decided not to challenge the award of the Industrial Tribunal and thus award has attained finality. In compliance of the aforesaid award and judgment of this Court, the respondents have granted the benefit of semi permanent status to the said Shri Kailash Chand Sharma. The said Shri Kailash Chand Sharma was initially appointed on 17.4.1993. In compliance of the judgment, he was granted semi permanent with effect from 17.4.1995 on completion of two years of service and permanent status with effect from 17.4.2003 on completion of ten years of service. He was granted regular pay scale with effect from the conferment of semi permanent status on 17.4.1995 with all consequential benefits. However, he has been granted notional benefits from the date on which he was conferred semi permanent status upto 31.12.1997 in terms of the Government circular dated 18.6.1998.

Shri Sunil Yadav, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that regular pay scale has been granted to the petitioner in compliance of judgment of this Court on the principal of equal pay for equal work. Petitioner filed application under Section 33C(2) before the Labour Court for recovery of the amount and therefore the writ petition would not be maintainable. Petitioner should take recourse by way of industrial dispute like the case of Kailash Chand Sharma. This Court may not entertain the writ petition on such disputes.

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that though the respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner but they are unable to dispute the fact that he was working with them continuously from 28.11.1983. in the reply to the writ petition also, they have not disputed the fact that many of his juniors as named in the writ petition, who were engaged much subsequently to the, but were granted regular pay scale form the year 1986. The respondents in reply to para 6 of the writ petition have merely stated that the same need no comments and that the petitioner cannot take any benefit of Work Charge Rules. The respondents have also not been able to justify why when they complied with the award passed in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma and granted him benefit of semi permanent status and permanent status, petitioner should be held entitled to the same relief. From the order dated 29.5.2012 passed in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma by District Ayurved Officer, Jaipur-A, it is however evident that Shri Kailash Chand Sharma was initially appointed on 17.4.1993. He was granted semi permanent status on completion of two years of service with effect from 17.4.1995 and permanent status on completion of ten years of service with effect from 17.4.2003. However, the salary of regular pay scale was granted to him with effect from 17.4.1995, but on account of circular of the Government dated 18.6.1998, he has been paid only on notional period for the period intervening 17.4.1995 to 31.12.1997. In other words, he has been granted actual benefit from 31.12.1997.

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant semi permanent status to the petitioner on completion of two years of service taking his date of initial appointment to be 28.11.1983 with effect from 28.11.1985 and permanent status with effect from 28.11.1993. Though he shall be granted the regular pay scale with effect from 28.11.1985, but he shall be entitled to notional benefits from the period 28.11.1985 till 31.12.1997 in view of the Government Circular dated 18.6.1998. In other words, he shall be paid actual benefits with effect from 31.12.1997, but he shall be granted notional benefits from 31.12.1997, till the date he was granted regular pay scale pursuant to the judgment of this Court in his earlier writ petition dated 2.4.1997 w.e.f. March, 1995. As a consequence of grant of regular pay scale to the petitioner from the date on completion of two years of service i.e. 28.11.1985, he would be entitled to revision of pay scale and grant of increments and thus his pay shall be liable to be revised from the date he was granted regular pay scale. Petitioner shall be granted arrears of such salary with interest @ 6% per annum from the date he was already granted regular pay scale till now.

Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents.

The writ petition is consequently allowed.