Dismissed

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Vyas

Rajasthan HC30 Jan 2018SAW/226/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special appeal against a Single Judge order, the Division Bench rejected the appellant's contention regarding the nomenclature of the respondent's appointment, upholding the decision that the respondent, who performed duties of a Civil Mistry, was entitled to semi-permanent status on that post.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the respondent's entitlement to semi-permanent status as a Civil Mistry.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Chandra Prakash… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 226 / 2013

¶3

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶4

Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶5

Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.

¶6

Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Jaisalmer

¶7

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division-I, Jaisalmer

¶8

Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, (Building & Road) Sub Division-I, Jaisalmer

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Chandra Prakash Vyas s/o Jag Jeevan Ji aged about 48 years resident of Manak Chowk, Jaisalmer

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arjun Purohit

¶14

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA

¶16

Order

¶17

30/01/2018

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

Case of the respondent pleaded in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was that in the year 1985, with effect from 09.05.1985 he was appointed as a Civil Mistry evidenced by Annexure-1 filed along with the writ petition. Annexure-1 refers to the writ petitioner being appointed as a Laboratory Assistant

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[SAW-226/2013]

¶22

Quality Control/Mistry. Appointment was as daily rated employee. As per the writ petitioner he worked as a Mistry and received daily wages for the work done evidenced by Annexure-2 filed along with the writ petition.

¶23

The writ petition relied upon Rule 3 of the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B&R) Work Charged Employees Rules, 1964 which require declaration of daily wage employees as semi-permanent and permanent on the post they were appointed as daily rated employees on rendering the requisite length of service. Grievance raised was to be declared semi-permanent vide order dated 08.09.1988 with effect from 30.04.1987 against the post of Road Moharrir. The said post was in a pay scale lower than that of a Civil Mistry.

¶24

Work Charged Rules in question show that the post of a Mistry is a skilled workman post and that of a Road Moharrir is that of a semi skilled workman.

¶25

In response to the writ petition, in the reply filed the appellant pleaded that from a perusal of Annexure-1 it is evident that there is no post of Civil Mistry mentioned in the Annexure.

¶26

Now, this is incorrect. Annexure-1, as noted hereinabove refers to the writ petitioner being appointed as Laboratory Assistant Quality Control/Mistry.

¶27

It is apparent that the central issue before the learned Single Judge was to the entitlement of the writ petitioner being declared semi-permanent as a Mistry or Road Moharrir.

¶28

The learned Single Judge has noted that all through out as

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[SAW-226/2013]

¶31

daily rated employee the respondent discharged duties as a Civil Mistry and thus he was entitled to be granted semi-permanent status as a Civil Mistry.

¶32

In our opinion once the appellant described writ petitioner’s appointment as a Laboratory Assistant Quality Control/Mistry, it is responsible for laying the foundation of a problem.

¶33

A person cannot be appointed as a Laboratory Assistant Quality Control as well as a Mistry at the same time.

¶34

The deadlock has to be broken with reference to the actual fact of working by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has evidence that all through out he discharged duties of a Mistry.

¶35

Thus, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

¶36

The appeal is dismissed.

¶37

(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J.

¶38

Mohit Tak

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Vyas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Vyas

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

Shri Sheetla Mataji Kaga Tirth Trust Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bheru Lal Jat and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Chunni Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

State and Anr. Vs Zakir Mali and Anr.

Ganga Ram Vs State and Ors.

Deva Ram and Ors. Vs State and Ors.