DAYALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. These bunch of writ petitions involving substantially common questions of facts and laws are being decided by this, judgment. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 619/1999 & 620/99. (1) Six petitioners preferred this writ petition No. 619/1999. All these petitioners were appointed on the post of Additional Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent vide orders issued on various dates in the years from 1985 to 1986, copies of which are placed on record jointly as Annex. 1. These appointment orders were issued by the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, Banswara. In the appointment orders of the petitioners No. 1, 4, 5, & 6 it is mentioned that they are appointed on the post of Additional Superintendents on fixed allowance of Rs. 250/- per month with the condition that petitioners will have to remain at headquarters and they will have to work regularly and daily. In the appointment order of the respondents No. 2 & 3, it is mentioned that they are appointed on the post of Assistant Superintendents with the same condition of remaining at headquarters. In these orders Rs. 250/- have been termed as salary and not as allowance. These all appointments are described as temporary appointments. According to petitioners, duties of Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents have been detailed in the Government Aided Hostel Control Rules, 1982 (for the short Rules of 1982). The duties of the Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents are given in rule 6 of Rules of 1982. Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 6 of Rules of 1982 provides that the duties/work of Additional Superintendents will be the same as of Assistant Superintendents appointed in the government hostels and wherever in the Rules of 1982 designation of Assistant Superintendent has been used, it will be read as Additional Superintendent for the aided hostels. Meaning thereby work and duties of Additional Superintendent and the work and duties of the Assistant Superintendents shall be the same. Only difference appears to be of description, and if read with sub-rules (8) and (10) of the rule 1 of the rules of 1982 further difference is that Assistant Superintendents are to be appointed by the department whereas Additional Superintendents are to be appointed by the added societies. It is relevant to mention here that though as per sub- rules (8) and (10) of the rule 1, appointing authorities are different for the above two posts but all the petitioners were appointed by the respondents No. 3 and not by the aided institution, irrespective of the post, whether on the post of Addl. Superintendent or on the post of Assistant Superintendent. The State Government on 7th June 1996 amended the Rules of 1982 and deleted the prefix "Assistant" from the post Assistant Superintendent. The petitioners claimed that after deletion of the world "Assistant" from the Rules of 1982, the petitioners are working on the post of the Superintendents. The petitioners are working on the post of Superintendents is an admitted fact as the respondents have admitted it in their reply to the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/1999 was appointed on the post of Superintendent by the respondents No. 6 "Sangh" vide Annex. 1. Except this difference of appointment, the facts and the grounds raised in this writ petition are similar to the facts of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 619/1999.

(3.) IN considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. Though there are different posts involved in these writ petitions and there are different appointment orders issued by different authorities but looking to the nature of controversy and the point of law involved in these writ petitions, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.