Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Umashankar Gupta vs State Of Raj & Ors on 24 October, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Review Petition (Writ) No. 16 / 2015
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5393/2010
Umashankar Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj & Ors
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 24/10/2017 The matter comes up on an application (I.A.No.402/2017), under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a prayer for condonation of delay in institution of the review petition.
For the reasons detailed out in the memo of application and upon hearing the counsel for the review petitioner; this Court is fully satisfied with the explanation furnished for the delay in institution of the review petition; hence, the application merits acceptance.
Consequently, the application (I.A. No. 402/2017), is hereby allowed. The delay of 791 days' in institution of the review petition, is hereby condoned.
Despite service effected on the review petitioner, none has put in appearance.
Heard and considered.
(2 of 7) [ WRW-16/2015] Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the review petitioner, submits that the order under review dated 29th August, 2012, was made in a batch of writ applications, including the one of which review is sought for, relying upon the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4838/1996), decided on 2nd February, 2010.
According to the learned counsel, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the same controversy and a batch of intra-court appeals, lead case being DBSAW No.1085/2014:State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jai Kishan Bhatia, decided on 26th November, 2014, on a detailed consideration of the matter, held thus:
"7. The Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & others vs. Anil Acharya (supra) considered the deficiencies in the adjudication of the writ petitions and orders, which have been passed in the past, and further considering the fact that each case requires examination of facts by screening with the help of the original documents, issued following directions on 20.11.2014:
"19. From the aforesaid letter dated 1.7.2013 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, we find that the State Government has, in principle, accepted the upgradation of 1147 posts of Store Munshi with the conditions of screening each and every applicant. The conditions stated in the letter proposed to screen out all 7 those persons, who were not eligible and those who have been promoted in their own trade other than Store Munshi. The State Government also proposes to examine the case of each and every applicant, with the original documents being produced by the Assistant Engineer/Executive Engineer of the unit/subdivision.
(3 of 7) [ WRW-16/2015]
20. We find that since the exercise of screening and to weed out those persons, who were not entitled to the benefits as have been given in Hem Singh's case, has already been initiated and that the list of eligible persons, after screening, has already been forwarded to the State Government, it is not necessary for this Court to examine each and every case for his/their entitlement to the benefits to be given in accordance with judgment of Hem Singh.
21. We make it clear that Hem Singh's case was decided on the findings that the petitioners in those cases were either employed initially on the post of Store Munshi in Work Charge Establishment of Public Health & Engineering Department or they were allowed to work subsequently as Store Munshi and that they were entitled to be granted semi permanent status after completing two years of service and permanent status after completing 10 years of service. On the facts, as they were given in Hem Singh's case, it was decided that all such persons were entitled to consequential benefits of working on the post of Store Munshi. The benefits, however, had to be given from the date, they were working as Store Munshi and for which, they should be eligible and have not received any promotion in their field, such as Pump Driver or Fitter.
22. Now since the screening is in process and the report of the Screening Committee is under consideration of the State government, we do not propose to examine each and every case for ascertaining the facts as to whether the respondents are entitled to be given benefits and whether they will be entitled to any arrears. Any decision taken by the State Government will abide by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the Special Leave to Appeal, in which, notices have been confined to payment of arrears prior to 2007 or of any orders, which the Supreme Court, pass on an application, which the State Government proposes to move.
23. We are informed that the Work Charge Rules of 1964 have, since, been repealed and that the Work Charge Establishments have been abolished, and thus, the State Government must, find out the corresponding employment and pay scales to be applicable to Store 8 Munshi, in which (4 of 7) [ WRW-16/2015] the respondents, if they are entitled and eligible after screening, may be absorbed or regularised, in terms of the judgment of Hem Singh's case.
24. On the aforesaid discussion, all these special appeals are disposed of with directions that the respondents will be entitled to the benefit of Division Bench judgment in Hem Singh's case, only after and subject to the Screening to be carried out for weeding out the persons, who were either not eligible or have received promotions in their own trade other than the trade of Store Munshi. It goes without saying that this judgment will be subject to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18046/2012. There shall be no orders as to costs.
25. All the stay applications stand dismissed.
26. A copy of this order be placed in the files of all the connected appeals."
8. The judgment in Hem Singh and Lal Chand Sharma's case (supra) were rendered on the facts pleaded and replied of those cases, in which the petitioners were either employed initially on the post of Store Munishi in the Workcharge Establishment of the Public Health & Engineering Department, or they were allowed to work, subsequently as Store Munshis and were entitled to be given semi permanent status after completing two years of service and permanent status after completing ten years service. The facts of initial appointment are not common in all the cases, and it is not feasible to examine the facts of each and every case, individually. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that in most of the cases, it is admitted that the respondents had initially joined and were working as Helpers or Beldars, which are group 'D' posts, and for which, lower pay scale was admissible to them than that the Store Munshi. A large number of 9 certificates were issued by the Assistant Engineers fraudulently verifying that the petitioners were working as Store Munshi's, which should not give them any advantage of grant of semi permant status or permanent status under the Workcharge Establishment, inasmuch as, they were not entitled to hold the post they were appointed initially in the lower grade. We are also informed that a large number of such persons, admittedly appointed as Helpers and Beldars in lower grade, were given (5 of 7) [ WRW-16/2015] promotion as Pump Operator-II and thereafter as Fitters. They have filed the writ petitions on incorrect facts seeking advantage of Hem Singh and Lal Chand Sharma's case (supra). It was found that since the screening committee has been constituted and is considering the facts of each case, with the help of the original document, it will be appropriate to leave the matters, at the first instance, to be examined by the State Government to ascertain the facts of initial appointment, and to find out whether on that basis, they are entitled to be given any benefits as well as the arrears of pay as Store Munshis.
9. In this batch of Special Appeals, learned Single Judge did not call for the reply and where reply was filed, the Court did not record any findings, that the petitioners were initially appointed as Store Munshis and were entitled to be given semi permanent or permanent status and thereafter consequential upgradation of pay and the arrears. It would thus be appropriate, that for the reasons recorded in the matter 10 decided at Jodhpur, to follow the same reasoning and conclusion as in the judgment in State of Rajasthan & others vs Anil Acharya (supra) rendered on 20.11.2014 at Jodhpur.
10. All these Special Appeals are disposed of with the same directions as were given in Anil Acharya's case (supra)."
In view of the above; the instant review petition merits acceptance.
In the result, the order under review dated 29 th August, 2012, is hereby recalled.
The case of the writ petitioner would be governed by the adjudication made by the Division Bench in the case of Jai Kishan Bhatiya (supra), as extracted hereinabove.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. Pcg/23 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 11 / 2015 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5056/2010 Hemant Kumar Sharma
----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj & Ors
----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 24/10/2017 As prayed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner, is allowed two weeks' time to deposit process fee and take out notice for service on the writ petitoner, afresh.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. Pcg/24