NAND RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition, briefly stated are that the petitioner, who is present serving as a Pump Driver with the respondent No. 3, was initially appointed on work-charge basis with effect from 1. 07. 1975. THEreafter, he was absorbed as Class-IV employee vide order dated 29. 07. 1988 on consolidated salary of Rs. 240/- per month. Consequently, vacancy of Pump Driver came into existence in the year 1983 on account of voluntary retirement of Shri Faizu Khan, which was not filled-up by the respondents, the petitioner was asked to work as a Pump Driver as a stop-gap-arrangement and it is contended that the petitioner has been working on the said post of Pump Driver till date. This fact is fully borne out from a perusal of the order dated 22. 06. 1987, issued by the Chief Warden, Wild Life, i. e. respondent No. 2. A perusal of the said order clearly reveals that the petitioner had acquired 3 years requisite practical experience having worked as Pump Driver with the said Department as on the said date. It is further stated in the certificate that the work of the petitioner was found quite satisfactory and that he had further achieved sufficient experience as a Pump Driver. It was keeping in view of these facts, that recommendations were made for confirmation and regularisation of the services of the petitioner on the post of Pump Driver by respondent No. 2. A perusal of the aforesaid order further reveals that there was categorical assurance conveyed to the petitioner that he will be given promotion on the post of Pump Driver by the respondents.

(2.) THEREAFTER the petitioner made several representations to the respondents for regularisation of his services as a Pump Driver and that he should be further given the salary of the Pump Driver, on which post the petitioner had been performing his duties continuously ever since his appointment as a regularly appointed Pump Driver Since the year 1983. Notwithstanding the representations and recommendations made in favour of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 22. 06. 1987, as referred to above, neither the services of the petitioner have yet been regularised nor the petitioner had been paid wages admissible to the Pump Driver since 1983. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner had been paid wages for the post of Class-IV employee and that he was left with no option but to serve a notice for demand of justice to the respondents dated 21sl January, 1989 (Annex. 3) but the respondents did not care to send any reply, therefore, the petitioner has moved this writ petition before this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the reply filed by the respondents as well as the relevant documents on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to succeed.