GOPAL LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay to him the salary in the regular pay scale of Lower Division Clerk from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.10.1989.

(2.) Smt. Gayatri Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed on muster roll basis on 01.10.1989 with the respondents and has been regularly discharging his duties on the said post. The Government of Rajasthan in its Department of Personnel issued a Circular on 13.02.1991 directing that all those daily wage Lower Divisional Clerks who were appointed on 31.03.1990 should be given the minimum pay scale of LDC and also the dearness allowance. Accordingly, the office of the Executive Officer, PHED, Hindaun forwarded the list of such eligible employees which included the name of the petitioner to Superintending Engineer, PHED, Circle Sawaimadhopur subsequently. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been granted minimum pay scale but till date his case has not been considered either for grant of semi permanent and permanent status under the work charge rules or for regularisation on the post of LDC. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed with the aforesaid directions to the respondents.

(3.) The respondents in reply to the writ petition have though contested the claim of the petitioner that he is discharging the work of LDC but they have asserted that he has been performing duties as daily wage employee in different water schemes of Todabheem on muster roll basis but the respondents have further admitted that his case was recommended to the higher authorities for his appointment on the post of LDC in view of the fact that he was having educational qualification of M.Com. They have stated that the petitioner was taken on the post of daily wage Assistant and was accordingly paid daily wages. It has been stated that applications were invited from the employees who were having minimum eligibility and qualification for grant of regular pay scale of LDC and the name of petitioner was included in the list so prepared. The reply of the respondents thus clearly show that they do not deny the true factums namely that the petitioner has been working with them since 01.10.1989 and that he was not only eligible but was also discharging the duties of the post of LDC, though according to them, he was engaged only as daily wage Assistant. The petitioner has worked with the respondents for more than 19 years and yet his case has not been considered either for grant of permanent status in the post he was working or for grant of regular pay scale on the post of LDC. The respondents cannot in this manner be allowed to exploit an employee who is well qualified and is actually discharging the job on the post of LDC.