IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5306/02 Surajmal vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 20/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.S. Hora for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the State. ****** This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the Finance Department and the consequential order dated 20.7.2002 passed by the respondents. Shri S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as work charged Beldar in the respondent department at Bharatpur in the month of December, 1986. He continued to work with them without any break till 1.8.1988. His services were however terminated suddenly with effect from 1.8.1988. At his instance, an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Bharatpur, which by its awarded dated 8.2.1996 declared the retrenchment illegal and held the petitioner entitled to reinstatement. The respondents challenged the award in the writ petition, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the respondents by order dated 21.4.1999 granted semi permanent status to the petitioner showing his date of initial appointment as 1.12.1986. Such semi permanent status was conferred upon the petitioner with effect from 1.9.1990 and the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of 755-940 as on 1.9.1990. Petitioner continued to draw his salary till July, 2002. However, the respondents suddenly on 27.7.2002 withdrew the said order on the basis of order of Finance Department dated 19.12.2000. Learned counsel argued that Finance Department has in the aforesaid Circular called upon all the government departments that benefit of regular pay scale pursuant to any award passed by the Labour Court may not be conferred upon their employees in view of the bar contained in Section 9 and 11 of the Rajasthan Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999 (for short- REPSOR Act). Shri S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Labour Court by is award dated 8.2.1996 had declared termination of the petitioner as illegal and has further directed his reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages. The petitioner was consequently reinstated. The semi permanent status was conferred upon the petitioner by order dated 21.4.1999 showing him to have been appointed with effect from 1.12.1986. It was contended that the semi permanent status was conferred upon the petitioner on petitioner's having completed two years service. The petitioner has been fixed in the scale of 755-940 accordingly and therefore that order could not be suddenly withdrawn by the respondents without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that aforesaid Section 9 and 11 have been declared ultra vires to the Constitution of India by division bench of this Court in the case of Bhawani Singh & 17 Ors. vs. State & Ors.-2002 (3) WLC (Raj.) 728. The action of the respondents is even otherwise liable to be declared illegal. It is therefore prayed that the order dated 27.7.2002 by which the semi permanent status given to the petitioner was withdrawn be quashed and set aside Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that the REPSOR Act of 1999 was made effective from 5.5.1999. In view of the bar contained in the aforesaid Act, especially in Section 9 and 11, the petitioner could not be granted the benefit of regularisation in service. Even if he was work charged employee, he could not be granted semi permanent status. There was therefore no illegality in withdrawing the benefits which had wrongly been granted to the petitioner. The very foundation of the impugned order by which the semi permanent status granted to the petitioner was withdrawn was the Circular of the Finance Department dated 19.12.2000 which in turn was based on provisions of Section 9 and 11 of the REPSOR Act. This Court in Bhawani Singh, supra has declared the aforesaid two sections ultra vires to the Constitution of India. With that, the basis for withdrawal of the benefit of semi permanent has ceased to exist. Even otherwise, when the respondents granted the benefit of semi permanent status to the petitioner with effect from 1.9.1990 and petitioner continued to draw such benefits pursuant to the order dated 21.4.1999 till it was withdrawn on 27.7.2002, the respondents could not withdraw such benefits without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without serving upon him an action inspired notice. The action of the respondents in seeking to withdraw the benefit of semi permanent status is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and is held to be so. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.7.2002 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits. Compliance of this judgement be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/