HUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since same question of law on almost identical facts is involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being decided by this common order.

(2.) For the decision making process, the facts of SB Civil Writ Petition No.17675/2015 (Hukum Singh v. State Personnel Department and Anr.) are dealt with as a lead case which shall be applied mutatis mutandis in other connected writ petitions.

(3.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee on 08/07/1989 on daily wages basis. The claim of the petitioner is that he has discharged more than 20 years of service and 12 other persons were also assigned various duties as Class IV employees with the respondents. The similarly situated persons filed various writ petitions before this Court and the same were allowed and such similarly situated persons were regularized in service vide order dtd. 17/03/2001 (Annexure 2). The petitioners earlier filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.9979/2007 before this Court praying for salary in regular pay-scale for the post of Class IV servant and regularization of his services. During pendency of the said writ petition, the Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules 1999 were amended and new sub-rule 6(4) was added to Rule 6 vide notification dtd. 27/02/2009. The writ petition was allowed by the Court vide order dtd. 19/11/2010 and thereafter an order was passed by the Chief Manager of the respondent stating that initial appointment of the petitioner was not against vacant post but was on daily wages basis in Mess Fund and at that time there existed no regular sanctioned post and therefore, it was not possible to regularize services of the petitioner as per amendment dtd. 27/02/2009. The petitioner filed a contempt petition which was dismissed vide order dtd. 09/12/2014 but this Court, while dismissing the contempt petition gave liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy as available under law. The petitioner was not considered by the Screening Committee as is evident from the office note dtd. 05/06/2013 (Annexure-9).