Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramlal vs . on 29 January, 2015
(1)
13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 635/2015 Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & others.
Date of Order :: 29.01.2015 HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Mr. Vimal Mathur, counsel for the petitioner <><><><> The prayer in the present writ petition is to declare the petitioner semi-permanent and permanent on the post of Store Munshi. It is stated that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6423/2008) decided on 21.10.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Anil Acharya (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 546/2014) & Other connected matters decided on 20.11.2014. The relevant operative part of the judgment reads as under:-
"20. We find that since the exercise of screening and to weed out those persons, who were not (2) 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 Munshi, in which the respondents, if they are entitled and eligible after screening, may be absorbed or regularised, (3) 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 Surpeme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18046/2012. There shall be no orders as to costs."
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner has not been placed before the Screening Committee as he was not a party in any of the writ petitions although he is similarly situated.
In view of the above, I deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent No. 3 who shall duly consider the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and forward the same to the respondent No.2, if found eligible for consideration to be further examined by the Screening Committee as per the directions passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 546/2014.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.
IK