Dismissed

Bhagirth Mal v. State

Rajasthan HC2 Apr 2009CW/3977/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner sought semi-permanent status and seniority from earlier dates. The Court held that while semi-permanent status was accepted for notional benefits, consequential benefits and seniority could not be granted from the initial appointment date due to the nat

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed.

challenging the order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Petitioner in the appeal has prayed that the respondents should be directed to grant him semi permanent status with effect from 18.2.1987 and not from 1.4.1990 as was granted by the respondents. The second prayer was that the petitioner should be granted seniority from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 18.2.1985 in Rural Water Scheme, Kolida and not from the date on which he was transferred to Urban Water Scheme, Sikar where he was transferred and joined on 7.7.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards the order dated 4.8.2004 passed by the Superintending Engineer, PHED,

prayers has been substantially accepted by the respondents themselves. In this order, the petitioner has been declared semi permanent with effect from 18.2.1987 though for notional benefits only. The question now remains whether the petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits and seniority from the date of his initial appointment.

A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal clearly indicates that the arguments that was raised on behalf of petitioner was for being declared semi permanent on completion of two years from the date of initial appointment but as far as seniority is concerned that claim was given up as would be evident form the following:

“It was argued by the learned representative for the appellant that the appellant was in continuous service 18.2.85, therefore, he should have been declared semi-permanent after completion of 2 years service i.e. in 1987. The transfer on his own request would not debar him from being declared semi permanent on completion

transferred on his own request which fact is not disputed by the petitioner to another unit, as per Rule 4 of the Work Charge Rules of 1964 when Rural Water Scheme is treated as separate unit, he cannot be granted seniority higher than those who were already working in the new unit, from an earlier date. The actual benefits of the earlier period for which the petitioner has been declared semi permanent need not be granted because the respondents themselves have considered granting semi permanent status to the petitioner on 18.2.1987 in spite of the fact that his such claim was rejected by the Tribunal.

Bhagirth Mal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirth Mal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Chand Meena Vs State and Ors.

Heera Lal Damore Vs State and Ors.

Mohemmed Zahid Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Raj.Sahayak Karamchari Sangh Vs State

Bhanwar Lal Solanki Vs State

Ramnaeayan Vs State