DAYA RAM BENGALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE approaching this Court the petitioner gave notice of demand for justice on 8.4.1996 through his counsel Shri Lokesh Sharma. This unnecessary litigation could have been avoided if the authorities had examined legal implication of its order dated May 17, 1995 qua the petitioner and other similarly placed Class IV employees working in Sanskrit Education Department.

(2.) S .B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4868/92 was filed before this Court on July 7, 1992, by the union of the employees seeking regular pay -scale and regularisation of 82 part -time class IV employees who were working in different Primary/Middle Praveshika Sanskrit Schools of the State Government. Those 82 part -time employees were appointed on different dates, last one was appointed on 21.3.1990. The writ was allowed on 19.1.1991 and directions were given to the respondents to give regular pay -scale of a class IV employee with admissible dearness allowance. It was also directed to affix their pay at minimum of the pay -scale from the date of filing the writ petition. For regularisation of their services direction was given to consider their cases in accordance with the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 and all other circulars issued from time to time. No appeal was preferred by the State Government challenging the above judgment. On the contrary, pursuant to this judgment, the State Government issued an order on 17.5.1993 (Annexure 3) whereby services of all those part -time class IV employees were regularised with effect from 7.7.1992 giving them regular pay -scale of class IV services from that date.

(3.) THE factual aspect is not disputed before me which clearly establish that 82 part -time class IV employees working in Sanskrit Education Department, who were initially appointed after 1985 till 21.3.1990, have been regularised in class IV services with effect from 7.7.1992. Discrimination to the petitioner and other part -time class IV employees appointed upto 21.3.1990 in not giving them similar treatment of regularising their services from 7.7.1992 is apparent. The plea taken by the respondents in their reply that regularisation of 82 part -time employees vide order dated 17.5.1993 was made under orders of the Court, hence the petitioner and other similarly placed employees are not entitled to get the same benefit is strange which cannot be justified at all. I fail to visualize this stand of the State Government. Is this stand permissible in law ? The answer is clear in negative. The petitioner among others similarly placed or standing or better footing cannot be discriminated under the garb of court's order. Denial of benefit of regularisation to them from 7.7.1992 would be travisity of justice and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State Government while regularising services of 82 part -time employees, may be under orders of the Court, had a constitutional obligation to give similar treatment to other employees similarly placed. If the State Government was of the view that decision of this Court in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 4868/92 was not correct, it could have challenged it by preferring an appeal but while implementing the order it could not discriminate others.