S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13956/2011 (Harphool Singh v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.

: 15th December, 2012 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Narendra Pareek, for the petitioner/s. Mr.Chetan Bairwa, Addl. Government Counsel. By the court: By this writ petition, the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for

short (cid:147)Tribunal(cid:148)) has been challenged. Learned counsel inter-alia submits that the controversy involved in instant petition has been decided by this Court in CWP-4838/1996 vide judgment dt.02/02/2010. It is further stated that petitioner initially joined as Helper and was declared as semi-permanent, however, those juniors to him on the post of Helper were granted semi permanent status on the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13956/2011 (Harphool Singh Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors.) 2 post of Store Munshi. The petitioner despite being eligible and discharging duties of Store Munshi were not considered on the said post. It will be relevant to record that in CWP- 4838/1996 (supra), after the reply was filed by the respondent- State, it was not disputed that writ petitioner was appointed as Helper but were discharging duties of the post of Store Munshi but in the instant case, this fact has yet to be examined by the authorities.

It is thereafter only Rule 3(3) of Work-charge Service Rules, 1964 will come in play. The interpretation of R.3 (3) of the Work-Charge Service Rules, 1964 has been made by this Court in CWP-1013/1989 decided on 01/09/1993 which was later on further considered in the case reported in 1995(3)WLC 145, relevant extract of the judgment is being quoted as under:- (cid:147)Rule 3(3) of the Rajasthan P.W.D. Including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Department Work- charged Employees’ Service Rules, 1964 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13956/2011 (Harphool Singh Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors.) 3 imposes an obligation on the competent authority to grant declaration of semi- permanency to a work-charged employee who has rendered two years’ service satisfactorily. While passing order for granting the status of a semi-permanent employee, competent authority is bound to consider the nature of duties being performed by a work-charged employee.

That has apparently not been done in the present case because even though the petitioners has been discharging the duties of clerical nature, he has been treated as a semi-permanent Helper. (cid:148) The issue is further considered in the judgment reported in 1995(3)WLC 145 as under:- (cid:147)Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the contentions advanced at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing all the relevant documents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13956/2011 (Harphool Singh Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors.) 4 tendered on the record, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioners who was appointed as Helper Gr. II under Work-charge Service Rules vide order, dated 12.5.1981 and being qualified for appointment on the basis of Store Munshi and having completed requisite period of more than two years of service which was required for declaring him Semi-permanent under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, should be given appointment as Store Munshi with all Consequential benefits admissible to him in accordance with the Rules with effect from the due date, since he has been continuously discharging his duties of Store Munshi.