1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4495/1995. : : Fayaj Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 2.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Prahlad Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to pay to petitioner regular pay scale on the post of driver in the scale of Rs.950-1680 w.e.f. January, 1995 including D.A., H.R.A., C.C.A. and all other benefits and they further be directed to regularize him on the post of driver. 3. Shri Prahlad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has invited attention of the Court towards order dated 12.12.2008 by which petitioner has since been appointed on the post of driver albeit on adhoc 2 basis. Grievance of petitioner for regularization on the post of driver is concerned, stands remedied. On the other prayers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been regularly working with respondents on the post of driver w.e.f. January, 1995 and that he has been discharging the duties against a vacant post. Driver log-book has been placed on record to show that petitioner has worked as driver in the year 1995 till the writ petition was filed in 19.9.1995. Learned counsel submitted that even though petitioner is substantively appointed with Director of College Education, but respondents continuously required him to discharge the duties of driver, which is evident from number of certificates issued by Shri Shailendra Agarwal, IAS where petitioner was deputed to discharge the duties of driver. The certificates covers the period from 1.1.2001 till 1.6.2004 and show that wherever Shri Shailendra Agarwal has remained posted whether as Excise Commissioner, Managing Director, RSRTC or Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd etc, petitioner was deputed to discharge duties of driver with him and his working as driver has been certified as such. Learned counsel also cited the order dated 1.5.2006 issued by Joint Director, College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur showing that he was required to work as driver in case of 3 regular incumbent Nanag Ram Meena, who preceded on leave for 12 days. It is contended that even for the period intervening the date of filing the writ petition and 1.1.2001 and now petitioner has continuously worked without interruption. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case and perused the material available on record, I find that it seems unusual that petitioner, who was substantially appointed as Class-IV employee, was made to work on the post of driver and for most part of which, he was deputed to work with another Officer of the State. But nevertheless this is internal functioning of the respondents. The facts remains that documents on record clearly show that petitioner has been fairly regularly discharging the duties of the post of driver for all these time. Respondents have although contested the writ petition, but did not deny that petitioner was asked to discharge the duties of driver. Earlier also, this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.5117/1992 : Fayaj Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Decided on 6.1.1994 allowed the similar claim of petitioner by directing respondents to pay to him salary at the minimum scale of Rs.950-1680/- for such period he required to work as driver that was the period starting 4 from April, 1989 till 2.9.1992 when the regular incumbent was not posted with respondents and petitioner was asked to discharge the duties of driver. For the subsequent period, of course, petitioner is able to show that he has been working on the post of driver fairly regular. 4. On the aforesaid observations, I deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to approach the Labour Court by filing application under Section 22-C for computation of salary aforesaid. The Labour Court shall decide such application for computation of salary of petitioner on the post of driver within six months from the date of its filing and pass appropriate order within six months keeping in view the observations made above. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.H/ 18.