NAGA RAM CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Barmer, petitioner was interviewed & appointed vide order dated 3-9-85 on daily wages of Rs. 11/-per day by Executive Engineer, PHED Circle I, Barmer. This was stated to be fixed term appointment for one month only. But petitioner's services were continued and he is still in service. Further case of the petitioner is that he thereafter has acquired qualification of higher secondary in 1 989 and knows typing, he is, therefore, eligible for being appointed as LDC while originally services of the petitioner were utilised as a Helper Gr. II and for some time as Pump Driver, ultimately from 1 986 petitioner was in the office of the A.En. PHED Circle II and since then, he is working in the said office and discharging the duties of LDC/Cashier. Annex. 5 dated 3-9-1990 has been produced according to which Addl. Chief Engineer, PHED Jaipur has issued direction in pursuance of the Govt. Notification No. F. 3 (1) DOP/A/22OF 1989 dated 18-1 2-1 989 by which a further proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-rule [1) of Rule 7 of Raj. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1 957 was added as under-

(2.) In pursuance of above, information from various departments was sought about such work charged employees from whom work of LDC is being taken and to examine the case for regularisation. By letter Ex. 3 dated 27-6-90 the Assistant Engineer reported that the petitioner is fully eligible and competant to be regularised on the post of LDC who is" presently discharging the functions of LDC and Cashier in the office. On these averments, petitioner has claimed that respondents be directed to regularise petitioner's services on the post of LDC and to fix him in the prescribed pay scale of LDC with consequential benefits of arrears and other service conditions flowing therefrom.

(3.) Respondents have filed their return in which the facts about the appointment of the petitioner and issuance-of Annexs. 2,3, and 5 dated 10-5-90, 27-6-90 and 3-9-1990 respectively, have not been disputed. However, it has been contended that the petitioner was not appointed as a LDC and unless the petitioner clears the examination of Raj. Public Service Commission, he cannot be appointed as LDC while the current status about discharge of duties of LDC is not disputed. It has been stated by the respondents in their return that petitioner was not discharging independently the work of LDC but he was assisting LDC in discharge of his duties and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was discharging duties of LDC. On these averments, claim of the petitioner has been contested.