RAM DEO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Store Munshi with effect from the date he started working on the said post and to provide him all the consequential benefits thereto. It has, also, been prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount, which became due to him but has not been paid.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, as unfolded in the writ petition, is that on June 1, 1984, the petitioner was appointed on Muster -roll on the dairy wages of Rs. 13/ -, which was increased to Rs. 17/ - day and finally it was increased to Rs. 25/ - per day. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was appointed on Daily Wages Basis on Muster -roll, but from the very beginning, he was discharging the duties of the post of Store Munshi and is continuing on the said post. His further case is that even his case was recommended for appointment on the post of Store Munshi which was lying vacant. His further case is that as per the Instructions, issued by the State Government, the petitioner is entitled to be provided semipermanent status on the post of Store Munshi as the persons similarly situated and junior to him have been provided the semipermanent status. The respondents filed the return and in the return, it is contended that the petitioner was never appointed as Store Munshi, rather, on the contrary, he was appointed as an Unskilled Labour on daily wages basis and no work of Store Munshi was ever taken from him. It has further been averred in the return that if casually the work of the post of Store Munshi or other post was performed by the petitioner or some other person, then only on the basis of that casual work taken from the petitioner, he cannot claim any right to be appointed on the post of clerk or the Store Munshi. It is specifically denied that, the petitioner was ever appointed on the post of Store Munshi and asserted that no work of the post of Store Munshi or the clerk was ever taken from the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner, in support of his case, has not placed on record the order of appointment, by which he was given appointment on daily wages basis. He has, also, not contended in the writ petition that he was appointed on the post of Store Munshi. His only case is that he was appointed on daily wages basis but he was asked to discharge the duties on the post of Store Munshi, but this averment, made by the petitioner, has been denied by the respondents. The contention of the learned Deputy Government Advocate is that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis as an Uskilled Labour, but the respondents, also, did not place on record the letter of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of any material on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed as the Store Munshi or as an Unskilled Labour. It is, no doubt, true that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Meghwal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. W.L.R. 1991 (5) Raj. 299, the petitioner, who was appointed as a daily rated. employee on work charged basis, has completed about eight years of service and, therefore, he is entitled to be declared as semi -permanent employee on the post on which he was appointed and the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be given the semi -permanent status in the service and deserves to be regularised; but the matter cannot be decided in this writ petition as to on what post the petitioner was appointed, as it involves a disputed question of fact and there is no sufficient material on record, on the basis of which this controversy can be resolved. Though the Courts are not incompetent to decide the question of facts which are borne -out from the materials on record, but if the materials on record are not sufficient and the controversy requires a detailed examination of the facts then the controversy cannot by resolved in a writ jurisdiction because the object of Article 226 of the Constitution is to enforce the rights of the citizen and not to establish the rights. The establishment of the rights requires a detailed examination of the evidence, which is sought to be produced for the determination of the controversy. In the present case, the controversy; whether the petitioner was appointed as the Store Munshi or as an Unskilled Labour on work -charged basis and whether he performed the duties on the post of Store Munshi or as an Unskilled Labour or a clerk, is not possible to be decided in this writ petition as the controversy requires an elaborate examination of the facts In the absence of the material on record, this controversy cannot be decided as it involves a disputed question of facts, which requires an elaborate examination.