Allowed

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2008CW/3534/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a writ petition filed by daily wage employees who completed two years of service. The Court held that denying them semi-permanent status as per the Rules was violative of Article 14 and directed the respondents to consider their candidature for the status from the date of completion of service.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners for semi-permanent status from the date of completion of two years service with consequential benefits within three months.

Instant petition has jointly been filed by petitioners with the grievance that despite they completed 2 years of service under workcharge cadre in the month of July, 1990 and March, 1991 still declared semi-permanent under Rule 3(3) of Workcharge Service Rules, 1964 w.e.f. 1/1/95.

NAME	DATE OF FIRST APPOINTMENT	COMPLETION OF 2 YEARS OF SERVICE
Sh. Ashok Kumar	1.7.88	1/7/90
Sh. Mahesh Chand Darji	8.3.89	8/3/91
Sh.Ram Dhan Kumhar	8.3.89	8/3/91
Sh.Satish Chand	1.7.88	1/7/90

NAME

DATE OF FIRST
APPOINTMENT

COMPLETION OF 2 YEARS OF SERVICE

Sh. Ashok Kumar

1.7.88

1/7/90

Sh. Mahesh Chand Darji

8.3.89

8/3/91

Sh.Ram Dhan Kumhar

8.3.89

8/3/91

Sh.Satish Chand

1.7.88

1/7/90

Despite their completion of satisfactory service, they were declared semi-permanent under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1964 w.e.f. 1st January, 1995 which is evident from order Ann.1 dated 16th November, 1995.

workcharg cadre on completion of 2 years satisfactory service they became entitled for grant of semi-permanent status but without assigning any reason, they have been declared semi-permanent from 1.1.95 which is in clear violation of Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1964. In support of his submission, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Ila Chandra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [1998 WLC (2)-407].

Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that government took policy decision dt.28/2/94 holding that employees who have completed 2 years service with satisfactory record be considered for grant of semi-permanent status which has further been revised on 4th March, 1998 to consider such applicants for grant of semi- permanent status who have satisfactory record of service and get their fixation on notional basis on 31st December, 1997 and actual wages from 1/1/98, but no justification has been averred by respondents as to why they have been declared and granted semi-permanent status despite the fact that they have completed their 2 years of satisfactory service in July, 1990 and March, 1991.

It is not disputed that service of petitioners are governed by Workcharge Rules, 1964 under Rules 3(2) & 3(3) of Rules employees on completion of 2 years & 10 years of service they became entitled for grant of semi-permanent and permanent status under the scheme of rules. It is not the case of respondents that service rendered by petitioner which make them entitled

for grant of semi-permanent status under Rule 3 (3) of Rules, 1964 was not satisfactory or there was no post against which they could be considered for grant of semi-permanent status. In absence whereof, this court is of the opinion granting them benefit of semi-permanent status from 1/1/95 is not in consonance with Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1964. This court in the judgment [supra] has also examined the scheme of rules and has finally observed that employees working under the workcharge service rules are entitled for grant of semi-permanent status in accordance with scheme of rules and any circular contrary to it will not over reach to supplant the rules. This court observed as under:

“Thus, it is clear that this court has been directing the authorities from time to time to grant the status of semi- permanent on completion of two years satisfactory service by a casual work charged employee and a permanent status on completion of ten years satisfactory service. Not only this, the departments of the State Government have been issuing circular and orders granting status of semi-permanent or permanent on completion of two years and ten years satisfactory service by the work charged employees. Inspite of all these, it is really not understandable as to why a discriminating treatment be given to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. In fact, the respondents should have considered all similar cases in the light of the decisions given by this court to avoid contradictory and conflicting orders. It is, therefore, held that an employee who completes two years satisfactory service acquires right to be declared semi- permanent and the employer is under an obligation to pass appropriate order for conferring this status provided his service record is satisfactory”.

Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to consider candidature of petitioners for grant of semi- permanent status from the date of their completion of 2 years service on the post held by them in accordance with Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1964 with consequential benefits. The exercise be undertaken within three months and their decision be communicated to petitioners. No order as to costs.

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Settlement Commissioner Ja Vs Suresh Chand Sharma and Anr.

Padam Chand Vs State Andors

Dambar Singh Vs State and Ors.

Ram Swaroop Lakhera Vs State

Partu Ram Raigar Vs State and Ors.

Mangi Lal Balai Vs U O R Jaipur