Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj. & Ors vs Mahesh Kumar & Anr on 7 March, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1749/ 2014
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Public Health
and Engineering Department, Secretariat, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer (Rural), Department Public Health &
Engineering, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, Department of Public Health and
Engineering, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Jeev Raj, Aged about 45 years, R/o
1/73, Housing Board, Sumerpur, District Pali.
2. Paka Ram S/o Shri Peera Ram, Aged about 52 years, R/o
Village & Post Chanod, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 07/03/2017 In view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.11.2016 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1251/2014 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Kishan Kumar Acharya), the matter is covered by the same.
The judgment dated 18.11.2016 is reproduced hereunder:
"This appeal is barred by limitation from 323 days. An application is also preferred to have condonation of the same. While pressing the application, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the (2 of 5) [SAW-1749/2014] appellant submits that whatever delay occurred is due to certain unavoidable administrative reasons. Beside that, it is asserted that the order impugned is patently erroneous and therefore that requires scrutiny in appellate jurisdiction.
Having considered merits of the case we are inclined to grant this application. Accordingly the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the rival parties, the appeal is heard on merits.
Learned Single Bench by the judgment impugned dated 25.07.2013 while accepting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7567/2011 directed the respondents to extend the relief as prayed for in the terms of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Lal Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4838/1996) decided on 02.02.2010 at Jaipur. In the case aforesaid, a direction was given to award semi-permanent status to the employees from the date of completion of two years of service on the post of Store Munshi irrespective of the fact that they would have been appointed on some other post by any specific order.
While pressing the appeal, it is stated that the respondent-petitioner entered in the service of Public Health and Engineering Department on 01.04.1988 as Helper and semi-permanent status was conferred to (3 of 5) [SAW-1749/2014] him w.e.f. 01.01.1990 under an order dated 05.03.1992. In the year 2007, at the first instance he submitted a representation for grant of semipermanent status on the post of Store Munshi.
According to learned counsel the writ petition at the one hand suffers from inordinate delay and at the same time suffers from incurable lacuna of incomplete pleadings pertaining to the facts required for adjudication.
From perusal of the judgment impugned, it is apparent that learned Single Bench by relying upon the statement made by counsel for the parties decided the writ petition in terms of the judgment given in the case of Lal Chand Sharma (Supra). The facts of the case as such were not examined. It is not at all in dispute that appointment to the respondent-petitioner was given on the post of Helper and on the same post semi-permanent status was conferred under an order dated 05.03.1992 w.e.f 01.01.1990. The respondent petitioner never raised any objection for the grant of semi-permanent status on the post of Helper w.e.f 01.01.1990. At the first instance on 19.04.2007 he submitted an application for grant of semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi w.e.f 01.01.1990. The application dated 19.04.2007 also nowhere contains any averment that the service of the respondent-petitioner was utilized as Store Munshi (4 of 5) [SAW-1749/2014] w.e.f. 01.01.1988 or from any other day. It is simply stated by the respondent-petitioner that a promotion be accrued to him in the Ministerial Cadre though he is a member of Technical Cadre of Stores.
We do not find any reason justifiable to agitate the cause for grant of semi-permanent status after a lapse of more than fifteen years. As already stated the powers under Rule 3 (2) of the Rajasthan Work Charge Rules, 1964 at the first instance were invoked by the appellant in the year 1992 and result of that was accepted by the respondent-petitioner without any objection. It is not open for him to question the same after a period of 15 years. Beside that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2011 the cause as such was sought to be agitated after a lapse of more than nineteen years. The delay caused in the instant matter is fatal. It is also pertinent to notice that in the entire petition for writ there is no foundation to establish that the petitioner's service were ever utilized by the appellant as Store Munshi. In the petition for writ the averments of the petitioner is that the persons similarly situated have already been granted semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi. We are of considered opinion that such a vague averment is not sufficient to declare the petitioner entitled to have semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi from the date he completed (5 of 5) [SAW-1749/2014] two years of service.
In view of whatever stated above we are of considered opinion that learned Single Bench erred while accepting the writ petition preferred by the petitioner in the terms of the judgment given in the case of Lal Chand Sharma (Supra). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 25.07.2013 is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner is dismissed on the count of delay as well as on the count of lacking foundation to claim the relief.
No order as to costs."
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)ACTING C.J. Skant/-