DURJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJ & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the above named petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution read with Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964. The petitioner who was appointed as work-charge employee having been sponsored from the Employment Exchange and after taking into consideration his candidature by the Selection Committee and on the recommendations of the said Committee, was appointed as Helper Gr. II on 12.5.1981 and in the said Order his name was mentioned at serial No.11 in the list of the appointees.

(2.) It has been contended in the writ petition that looking to the qualifications of the petitioner he was deployed to discharge the duties of Store Munshi since he was eligible to hold this post under the Works Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1964'). It has been further contended in the writ petition that without taking into consideration actual working of the petilioner, he was declared semi-permanent under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 w.e.f. 19.5.1983 and to this effect an order was issued by respondent No.2, the Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D., Bharatpur belatedly on 15.12.1987. According to this order, the petitioner was declared semi-permanent as Helper Gr.ll which was contrary to the Rules of 1964.

(3.) Sub-rule (3) of the Rules of 1964 provides that a person who discharges the duties on the post continuously for a period of 2 years, is entitled to be declared semi-permanent against that post on which he was actually working on the expiry of two years period which has not been done in the present case. It has been further stated in the petition that certain orders were issued by the office of the respondent on 27.4.84, 9.4.85, 29.2.86, 2.5.86, 21.6.86 and 1.11.88 vide Annexures 1 to 6 respectively which reveal that the petitioner was actually working as Store Munshi; whereas he was appointed as a Helper Gr. II and since the petitioner was throughout discharging his duties as Store Munshi, he was fully eligible to hold the said post and should have been confirmed on that post. It has been further stated in the writ petition that respondent No.1, Chief Engineer, RH.E.D., Jaipur had issued a circular dated 9.11.85 stating therein that the persons who had completed two years of service as on 1.4.85 shall be declared semi-permanent on the post on which they were actually working. In view of the said circular an order was earlier passed on 4.12.87 by which two persons were declared semi-permanent as Helper Gr. II. When this fact came to their notice, the order was revised and they were made semi-permanent w.e.f. 1.4.1985 in the grade of 490-840 vide order dated 4.7.1988 as Store Munshis. It has been contended by the petitioner that on the ground of parity the case of the petitioner should have been treated similarly as of the said employees who were similarly placed in the matter of discharge of their duties like the petitioner since they were confirmed Store Munshies though appointed as Helper Gr.ll, as referred to above. The petitioner has thus been discriminated.