HARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioner may be allowed to continue on the post of driver with all. consequential benefits.

(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. R. S. Mehta, learned counsel, that petitioner is working in substantive capacity on post of Cleaner and was asked to render the services of the Driver from August 18, 1983 and was assigned the job of driving heavy vehicles. A copy of order in this respect (Annex. 1) dated April 25, 1984 has been placed on record. The driving licence of heavy vehicles has been filed and marked as Anx. 2. It is pointed out that since the petitioner was not paid the emoluments of a driver, a D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 910/88 was filed in this Court by the petitioner, which was disposed of on December 22, 1988, by which the petition was allowed and it iwas directed that the petitioner. be paid the minimum basic salary of the post of driver from March, 1985 on the principle of 'equal wages for equal work'. It is further pointed out that Respondent No. 3 Mr. V. D. yyas, Commissioner, Municipal Council, Ajmer, was involved in embezzlement case and Anti-Corruption Department conducted an enquiry in the same and the case has been filed in the Court of Law, where it is pending. This petitioner was working as a Chowkidar at the relevant time and his statement was recorded by the Anti-Corruption Department Authorities and subsequently, Respondent No. 3 pressurised petitioner to change his statement in his favour, which the petitioner refused to do. It is contended that with a view to harass and pressurise the petitioner, order dated May 29, 1989 (Anx ). was issued, directing that all those cleaners, who are working on the post of driver, be assigned the work of cleaner and work of driver should not be taken from them. This order was made applicable to petitioner and nine other persons, who were also working on the post of driver. It is further contended that in spite of this order, two persons belonging to SC (Harijans) working on daily wages, namely, Jagdish Prasad and Vimal have been retained to work as driver even though the petitioner is having experience as a driver. It is further pointed that alongwith rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, an order dated August 3, 1989 (Anx. 12) has been subsequently issued, is which six persons have been taken to work as driver. The first three in this list are cleaners, who are juniors to petitioner and the other three persons are working as Sweepers, who could not be assigned the work of driving as their first promotion will be on the post of Cleaner and thereafter, they can be promoted on the post of driver. It is also pointed out that Jagdish s/o Birdha Sweeper at S. No. 4 in the order mentioned above has been posted in Circle 2 in place of the petitioner, which shows that the respondents continued to have need of the services of the petitioner but have deliberately removed him from this post out of vengeance. It is contended by the learned counsel that this is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 and is highly discriminative.

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. Virendra Lodha learned counsel, that as a policy matter, all the persons, who were holding the post of cleaner but were not working as cleaner were directed to be assigned the work of the posts held by each of them. Therefore, no rights of the petitioner are involved or violated as he is holding post of cleaner and has been assigned the work on the post of cleaner. It is claimed that petitioner had no right to work on the post of driver. It is also pointed out that Anx. 4 applied to all the persons, who are working as drivers, even though they were holding the post of cleaner. Therefore, question of causing any harassment to the petitioner on account of pressure of respondent No. 3 does not arise. It is further pointed out that it is clear from Anx. 12 that these six persons made applications and prayed that they may be allowed to work as driver and further stated that they will not claim any additional salary/emoluments/allowance, on account of working as driver. It is, therefore, pointed put that all these persons, even though, working as drivers, are drawing the salary of the posts on which they have been appointed i. e. cleaner and sweeper. The learned counsel has referred to decision of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2349/189 Omprakash v. Municipal Council in which a similar matter had arisen. This was also a case in which the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur, had issued a direction that all persons, who are working on some other posts than on which they were originally appointed, be withdrawn and given to do the work for which they are posted. In this case, some LDCs were actually given work of Assistant Sanitary Inspector. It was, therefore, held in the abovementioned petition as also in two other similar writ petitions that they were not entitled to remain on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector any more, but were entitled to receive the minimum of the pay-scale of this post for the time they worked on the same. It is, therefore, contended that order (Anx. 4) is perfectly legal and the six persons mentioned in order (Anx. 12) have been allowed to work on the post of driver, since they have given up their claim of any extra allowance/emoluments, on account of working on the post of driver.