KRISHAN GOPAL TIWARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by the order dated, April 24, 1983, was appointed as work-charged employee on daily wages of Rs. 9/ -. The daily wages were increased from time-to-lime. He worked on work-charged basis for a period of two years and, therefore, he was made semi-permanent Helper with effect from April 1, 1985, and was placed in the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to the semi-permanent Helper. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was made semipermanent Helper in the work-charged establishment and was given the minimum of the regular pay scale for the semipermanent status-holder Helper but actually the work of the post of the Lower Division Clerk was taken from the petitioner since the date of his initial appointment In the year 1990, a Circular dt. August 16, 1990 was issued by the Additional Chief Engineer, P. H. E. D. , Rajas-than, Jaipur, in which it was stated thai 50% of the posts of the Lower Division Clerks may be filled-up from amongst such candidates who were working on work-charged basis on muster-roll basis and have completed two years of regular service on April 1, 1988, and possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. It was further stated in the Circular that the names of such persons should be forwarded in the annexed Proforma. In pursuance to this Circularsm the petitioner's name was also forwarded but no action has been taken till today. On May 25, 1992, the order Annexure 5 was issued by which the petitioner was directed to hand-over the charge of maintenance of Ledger to one Shri Tara Chand-a daily wages employec-and the petitioner was ordered to be posed against Shri Tara Chand as the Helper in the Water-works. The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure 5, by which he was asked to hand-over the charge to Shri Tara Chand and to join his duties at the Waterworks, where Tara Chand was working. The petitioner has also prayed that as he is working on the postof L. D. C. since the date of his joining the department, therefore, his services on the post of Lower Division Clerk may be regularized from the date of his initial appointment and the respondents may be directed to make payment of salary to him of the post of L. D. C. since March 21, 1988. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition and stated in the reply that on the day when the petitioner was made semi-permanent on the post of Helper, he was not qualified to be appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk as he was non-matriculate. The respondents, in their reply, also, denied the fact of taking the work of the post of L. D. C. from the petitioner. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed as a Helper and the work of Helper was taken from him.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner, from the date of his initial appointment, worked on the post of L. D. C. , therefore, he is entitled for the regularisation of his services on the post of L. D. C. and is also entitled for the payment of salary which is payable to a regularly appointed L. D. C. , as per the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who worked on the post of L. D. C. and entitled for regularisation on this post, cannot be asked to handover the charge to a person who is a work-charged employee and also junior to the petitioner and he cannot be transferred to the Water-works. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order Annexure 5 and has also submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation on the post of L. D. C. as he was not qualified to be appointed on the post of L. D. C. as the procedure has been prescribed in the relevantservice Rules for appointment on the post of L. D. C. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that no work of the post of L. D. C. was ever taken from the petitioner and throughout the service tenure, he worked as a Helper. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition involves a disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into and decided in the writ petition and for that the petitioner should seek the appropriate remedy before the competent Court for determination of his case.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.