LAWS(RAJ)-1995-2-60

MANGI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On February 08, 1995
MANGI LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's father Shri Jetha Ram died while working in the Public Health & Engineering Department, Bikaner. THE petitioner approached respondent No. 2, Superintending Engineer, P. H. E. D. , Bikaner Circle, Bikaner, for his appointment under the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of the Government Servants dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules' ). THE petitioner was given appointment on the post of Store Munshi on workcharge basis vide order dated 7. 10. 1978 in the pay scale of Rs. 355-10-415-15-550-20-570, which was later on revised to pay scale of 490-840. Later on the petitioner made an application that he should have been appointed on the post of L. D. C. on the regular establishment. THE petitioner was given appointment on the post of L. D. C. vide order dated 6. 8. 83 in the pay scale of 490-840 on the pay of Rs. 490/- per month, which is lowest of the pay scale. However, that appointment was cancelled by order dated 30. 9. 83 and the petitioner was asked to work on the post of Store Munshi. On the petitioner's representation, the petitioner was again appointed on the post of L. D. C. vide order dated 16. 2. 84, which was a regular appointment on the regular establishment of the Department. By this stage, the petitioner has reached to the pay scale of Rs. 540/- on the post of Store Munshi.

(2.) THE only grievance made by the petitioner is, that he should have been fixed on the pay of Rs. 540/- in the pay scale of 490- 840/- when he was appointed by order dated 16. 2. 84 and not on the pay of Rs. 490/-, which is lowest in the pay scale of 490- 840, as per rule 26 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 1951' ).

(3.) RULE 2 (g) has no application to the present case. RULE 2 (g) only says that the person appointed as work-charge employee, the RULEs shall not apply. The petitioner is not claiming the fixation of the pay scale as work-charge employee, but he is claiming the fixation of the pay scale as a regular employee and there is no bar for the application of the RULEs of 1951 to the regular employees.