RAMU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has been placed before us by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice on a reference made by the learned Single Judge (Quorum B. S. Chauhan J.) to examine the correctness of the judgments of this Court viz. Vinod Kumar. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1), Om Prakash Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2), Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Vibhag Sangh v. State of Raj. and Ors. (3) and unreported judgment dated 19. 5. 93 in Rana Ram and Ors. (4), interpreting the provisions of Sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan (Public Works Department (Bandr) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) work-charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1964) and the Notification dated 19. 8. 1980.

(2.) THE material facts to bring out the points for consideration in the instant writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioners were engaged as Beldar by the 4th respondent Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (P. H. E. D.), Jodhpur on daily wages fixed by the government and revised from time to time. Each of the petitioners have been appointed on different dates, but most of them have been working as work charge employee since 1988. They were engaged to complete specific Work and after completion of the work, they were shifted time to time to other schemes or the work as per the record. They are governed by the Work Charge Rules, 1964. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of having satisfactorily worked continuously for 2 years, they have not been conferred the status of semi permanent in disregard to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Work Charge Rules, 1964. It is also averred that while as a work charge employee, they are getting maximum Rs. 650/- per month whereas persons, who are doing the same work are getting salary in the regular pay scale drawing more than Rs. 1500/-per month. Thus, the petitioners have sought direction against the respondents to confer upon them the status of semi permanent employee and fix them in regular pay scale on the post of Beldar from the date of their initial appointment. A further direction has been sought to make payment of difference of wages/salary which has been paid to the petitioners and which is required to be paid to the Beldar in the regular pay scale along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners have been granted the status of semi permanent and they have been given all the consequential benefits by orders dated 24. 8. 95 (Annexure-R/1) and 16. 9. 95 (Annexure-R/2 ). It was contended before the learned Single Judge that as required by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Work Charge Rules, 1964 a work charge employee who has put in 2 years service satisfactorily is eligible for getting status of semi permanent. The learned counsel referred to various decisions of this Court referred to above, wherein a direction has been given that all those employees, who have completed 2 years of service satisfactorily be declared as semi permanent. In all the case the contention of the respondents that a prior sanction of the State for conferring the status of semi permanent is necessary has been rejected. A submission was made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the State that all the cases referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not lay down the correct law inasmuch as that this will make the mandatory requirement of Sub-rule (4) nugatory. The learned Single Judge expressed agreement with the learned counsel for the State that the interpretation of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 as given by this Court in different judgments referred to above has rendered Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 otiose and further that the court has not given any effect to the words "or more" along with 2 years service in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3. The learned Judge further observed that cumulative effect of reading of Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 3 together is that if in the opinion of the authority concern the service record of the casual work charge employees who have completed two years of more service is found to be satisfactory they can be given the status of semi permanent subject to the sanction/approval of the competent authority. Thus, the question which springs up for consideration is,

(3.) IN order to better appreciate the controversy involved, it would be convenient to read relevant provisions of Rule 3 of Work Charge Rules, 1964, which is extracted as follows: