RAMU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuing directions to the respondents to grant semi -permanent status and regular pay scale to them on the post of Beldar from the dates of their initial appointment and in the alternative to grant them semi -permanent status after completing two years service from their initial appointment.

(2.) AS per the factal -averments made in this petition, the petitioners were appointed as Beldars in 1988 and onwards and their services are governed by the Rajasthan (Public Works Department (B and R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) Work -charge Employee Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules, 1964'). During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had granted the semi -permanent status and the reliefs which are available to the semi -permanent employees as is evident from the orders dated 24.8.1995 (Annexure. Rule 1) and 16.9.1995 (Annexure. Rule 2) to the reply. The grievance of the petitioners is that under the provisions of the said Rules, they are entitled for the semi -permanent status from the date they completed two years' continuous service from the date of their initial appointment.

(3.) MR . Manish Singhvi has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. WLR 1991 (S) Raj. 192, wherein, after interpreting the provisions of Rule 3 of the said Rules, this Court held that in the work -charge services, all employees enter as a casual worker and once an employee completes two years period, he is eligible for the status of semi -permanent and on completion of the ten years service he is eligible for permanent status as work -charge employee, however, it will be subject to the only condition that his record of service should be to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. However, it has no concern whatsoever with the number of sanctioned posts because the posts are already sanctioned, against which the persons are continuing. Similarly, in Om Prakash Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., WLR 1991 (S) Raj. 299, the Court took the same view and rejected this submission of the respondent State that prior sanction is necessary or mandatory requirement as per Sub -rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules. Further, reliance has been placed by Mr. Singhvi on the judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 98/1993, Rana Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. decided on 19.5.1993. In the said case, the Court placed reliance upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Meghwal (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra) and Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Vibhag Sangh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1992 (1) WLC 26 and rejected the contention of the State that to grant semi -permanent status, the existence of a sanctioned post in mandatory and the Court observed that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of a declaration to the effect that he has acquired the right to treated as semi -permanent and directed as under' -