SAMUNDRA SINGH Vs. JDA, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that he should be allowed regular pay scale of the Driver plus other benefits admissible on this post under the Rules. He has also prayed for a direction to pay arrears of claim of the salary forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a Driver on work-charge basis with effect from 11-9-87 and was kept in leave reserve. He was allotted various type of vehicles from time to time to drive but he was paid at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per day only. The petitioner's case further is that from the date of his initial appointment till date, he has been discharging his duties regularly as driver with utmost efficiency, integrity and devotion. His submission is that he made repeated representations for regularising him on the post of the Driver by when he insisted more, instead of giving him order of regularisation his services were terminated vide orders dated 8.9.88. The petitioner challenged the order of termination on this count. Ultimately the order of termination was set aside by this court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3135/88 and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. The petitioner's grievance is that even now he is not being paid regular pay scale of Driver. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why it should not be admitted and allowed.

(3.) In reply to the case set up the respondent is that the petitioner worked on work charge basis at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per day and was kept in leave reserve as alleged. Respondent's case is that petitioner's service were contracted on the post of cleaner for a period of three months w.e.f. 3-9-88 at the fixed rate of Rs. 750.00 per month vide order, dated 13-4-88 and his services could be terminated even earlier than three months if the regularly selected persons under Jaipur Development Authority Employees (Recruitment and General Conditions) Regulations 1984 would have been available. Respondent has placed Ex R/1 on record to show that the petitioner was appointed Cleaner vide, order dated 13-4-88, The petitioner in rejoinder has controverted the defence taken by the respondents in its reply and stated that from the very beginning he was appointed on work charge basis as a Driver and the order dated 13-4-88 was passed subsequently to camouflage his appointment and to deprive him of his legitimate right.