Pradeep Sharma vs State And Ors

Arun Monga, J

Petitioner is before this Court seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment as Stenographer i.e. on 20.10.1997, with all consequential benefits, including proper pay fixation and the provision of ancillary benefits from the date of initial appointment.

Briefly speaking, the relevant facts of the case are that the respondents invited applications for appointment on the post of Stenographer for the office of Additional Government Advocate, Jodhpur. The petitioner being eligible applied for the same.

2.1. The respondents, vide an order dated 20.10.1997, appointed the petitioner to the said post on a contractual basis. The petitioner continued to perform his duties in the office of the Government Advocate and Additional Advocate General, Jodhpur. Subsequently, by an order dated 02.11.1999, the respondents granted the petitioner temporary status in service. The petitioner’s pay was fixed in the pay band of Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/-. Pursuant to the order granting temporary status, the petitioner joined as Stenographer on 02.11.1999.

2.2. Subsequent to granting the petitioner temporary status, the respondents, by an order dated 21.05.2000, directed the establishment branch to maintain a service book for the petitioner in relation to his services as Stenographer.

2.3. It is submitted that a similarly situated employee, Satyendra Kumar Sharma, who was performing duties as a Stenographer in the office of the Government Advocate, Jaipur, was regularized on the post of Stenographer by an order dated 25.06.2004, under Rule 7(8a) of the Rules of 1957.

2.4. Subsequently, the respondents regularized the services of employees working on a temporary basis in the office of the Government Advocate by an order dated 23.09.2011.

2.5. The Government Advocate vide recommendation dated

08.12.2011 had requested the respondent authorities for regularizing the services of the petitioner and to grant him the benefit of annual increments.

2.6. By a communication dated 02.03.2012, the respondents informed the office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur, that the petitioner had been appointed as a Stenographer on a contractual basis, as per the records available with them.

2.7. By a communication dated 28.03.2012, the office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur, informed the respondents that the petitioner was fully eligible and entitled to be granted regular status but to no avail.

2.8. The petitioner then submitted a representation dated 08.12.2011, requesting the respondents to regularize his services in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1957. He pointed out that he had attained the age of 40 as of 08.09.2011 and had also passed English Typing and English Shorthand as optional subjects in the Senior Secondary Examination.

2.9. By an order dated 06.08.2013, the respondents placed the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with a grade pay of Rs. 3600 and fixed his salary at Rs. 12,900/-. The petitioner has been discharging his duties since 1997, however, he has yet not been regularized to date. Hence, this petition.

Defence taken by the respondents in their reply is that:

3.1. The petitioner was appointed purely on contractual basis, therefore, no fundamental right accrues in favour of the petitioner to be regularized on the post.

3.2. It is submitted that, by the order dated 23.09.2011, the services of only those candidates who had completed 10 years of service by the year 2006 were regularized. The petitioner, however, was appointed purely on a contractual basis on 20.10.1997 and, as such, did not complete 10 years of service by 2006.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the case file.

At the very outset it is not disputed that the petitioner’s services were hired on contractual basis some time in the year 1997 and he has been working as Stenographer ever since uninterruptedly without any break in the service. Subsequently, it transpires that the petitioner was granted a slightly better status by being putting in temporary services instead of being called contractual.

So far as Rule 7, Sub-rule 8(A) is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that an incumbent shall be regularized to the post of Stenographer only after reaching the age of 40 years, subject to the availability of a vacancy. Additionally, the incumbent must have passed a speed test in Hindi Stenography and Typing or in English Stenography and Typing, which should meet the standards of the Higher Secondary or Senior Higher Secondary examination. As per Advocate General office letter/D.O. dated 28.03.2012, petitioner meets the eligibility requirements for regularization.

On a Court query, both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents are ad idem that the case of the petitioner, on all fours, pari materia with the petitioners in writ petition No.10332/2018 in whose case learned Single Bench of this Court issued certain directions commanding the respondents to consider their case for regularization. Though, of course, an intra court appeal filed by the petitioner therein, before a Division Bench stating that instead of issuing directions, the petition should have been allowed by directing the respondents to regularize them forthwith, was dismissed.

On a further Court query to learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents as to why the case of the petitioner is not being considered for regularization, given that he has put in 28 years  of  service.  The  fact  that  his  service  duration  is uninterrupted clearly reflects that the requirement of job on which petitioner has been hired is perpetual in nature. The same is not stopgap arrangement. He would submit that earlier the case of the petitioner was considered but at the relevant time he had not put in requisite years of services so as to be considered for regularization in terms of Apex Court’s judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi. He submits that, as of now petitioner is since eligible to be considered for regularization, his case shall be taken up on priority and appropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible.

In view of the aforesaid candid stand taken, I am of the view that instead of adopting any adversarial course, it would rather be more appropriate if the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to take up the case of the petitioner on administrative side. In the event, his counter parts have been accorded the benefit of regularization he be also meted out with similar treatment to avoid any further heartburn to him. Needful exercise be carried out not later than four months from the date of receipt of web-print of this order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.