KAMLESH CHAND MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will decide Civil Writ Petitions No. 2305/ 1989,2278/1989, 2224/1989 and 2109/1989, by a common order because substantially they arose in the similar back-ground.

(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of Civil Writ Petition No. 2305/1989 are that the petitioner, Kamlesh Chand Meena had been adjudged suitable for regular appointment on the post of LDC in Municipal Council, Ajmer by an order dated February 23, 1985 although he initially came to be appointed on this post in the year 1979. The petitioner alleges that in the year 1984 he was directed to work on the post of Revenue Inspector and he continued to work on that post till the year 1986-87. Although, the petitioner worked on the post of Revenue Inspector, he was not paid the salary and benefits admissible to the post of Revenue Inspector. By another order dated December 12, 1988, the petitioner directed to work on the post of Revenue Inspector and since then he was working on that post. However, the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur issued an office order on May 12, 1989 by which it was inter alia directed that if employees of Municipal Council were working on posts other than the one on which they were appointed, they would be relieved from the higher post held by them. This order was modified by an order dated May 20, 1989. Even after the passing of these two orders, the petitioner continued to work on the post of Revenue Inspector. But under yet another order dated June 8, 1989 passed by the Commissioner (Civil Line Zone), Municipal Council, Jaipur, the earlier aforesaid order dated December 28, 1988 was cancelled which resulted in non-continuance of the petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector. The order dated June 8, 1989 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner fully possessed the qualifications required for being considered for promotion on the post of Revenue Inspector. Presently, there were nine posts of Revenue Inspectors available for being filled by promotion but the respondents have not taken steps for filling the posts of Revenue Inspectors by promotion in accordance with the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial) Service Rules, 1963. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated May 12, 1989 May 8, 1989 and June 20, 1989 (Annexures 3,4 and 5), directions for continuing him on the post of Revenue Inspector with consequential benefits and payment to him of arrears of salary of this post.

(3.) IT would appear from the factual narration of the facts alleged by the respective petitioners that while Kamlesh Chand Meena had been appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Municipal Council, Jaipur, but he was reauired to work on the post of Revenue Inspector. Respondents No. 3 and 4 in their counter has admitted that by order dated December 28, 1988, the petitioner was asked to do the work of Revenue Inspector in addition to the duties of his original post of LDC. That order was passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jaipur. The only case set up by respondents No. 3 and 4 is that the petitioner had never been appointed on the post of Revenue Inspector and his mere working against the post of Revenue Inspector does not entitle him to claim salary of that post. In relation to Chiranji Lal petitioner, it is not disputed by the respondents that he had been appointed on the post of Beldar and it is also admitted that he was transferred from Motor Garage to General Provident Fund/provident Fund Branch for doing accounts work and later on he was allotted the work of octroi, garden, receipt and despatch clerk The respondents have pleaded that a large number of persons were working against the post on which they had not been appointed and this was leading to serious complication. Consequently, the order dated May 12, 1989 was issued by the Administrator requiring that such persons should work on their principal post. IT is said that no legal rights of the petitioner were infringed by the impugned order. As regards Babu Lal petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2224/1989, respondents No 3 and 4 have pleaded that the petitioner had not given details of the persons who had been promoted as LDC without possessing the requisite qualifications. IT is stated that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of LDC and he has never held that post and, therefore, he has no right to the said post. In Matadeen Sharma's writ petition, although power was filed by Mr. J. K. Singhi on behalf of the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur, but in this case, an interim stay was granted by this Court on May 25, 1989 to the effect that the petitioner will perform the same duties which he was already performing. The respondents have filed an application under Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the stay order. IT has been mentioned by the respondents that the petitioner had been appointed as Beldar. However, it is admitted that he was transferred and posted by an order dated August 24, 1987 as LDC in the establishment section. Thereafter he was allotted the work in Establishment Section and Provident Fund Section and he was continuing to work there. However, it is assorted that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularised on the post of LDC against rules. The impugned orders are said not to be arbitrary, illegal or unjust. Since the petitioner was not holding the post of LDC on regular post, there was nothing wrong in asking him to discharge the function of his original post by order dated May 12, 1989 and the subsequent order dated May 20, 1989.