STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Vs. BAJRANG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG for the Appellants. The delay of 164 days occurred in preferring the present appeal is condoned, for the reasons stated in the application. The office is directed to register the appeal.

(2.) IN this intra court appeal, the Appellants (original Respondents) have assailed the order dated 16.9.08 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 6135/92, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the Appellants to declare the status of the present Respondent (original Petitioner) as semi permanent on the post of Store Munshi, on the minimum pay -scale of 490/ - with all allowances from the date when his juniors were given i.e. from 1.4.85 and to pay the back wages within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

(3.) IT appears that when the petition had come up for hearing on 30.8.05, the learned Counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner were already granted to him and, therefore, the court had ordered inter alia that if all the reliefs were not granted to the Petitioner, he could file a detailed representation and that the Respondents may pass a reasoned order on such representation of the Petitioner. Lateron, the Petitioner filed an application for revival of the writ petition as the grievances of the Petitioner raised in the petition were not accepted by the Respondents. The Respondents in the petition, had contested the said writ petition by contending inter alia that the Petitioner was temporarily appointed on daily wages vide order dated 14.2.85 by the Selection Committee after holding interview of the persons whose names were received from the District Employment Exchange. It was further contended that the persons who were appointed on Muster Roll and completed two years were granted minimum pay -scale of Assistant and the Petitioner was declared semi permanent on the post of Assistant on 19.6.1987 and thereafter was confirmed on the post of Assistant on 30th May, 1990. The Respondents had denied that the Petitioner was discriminated against the persons similarly situated.