1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2204/2001 (Ladu Ram Vs. State & Ors.) Date of order : January 10th, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. P.P. Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate. By way of filing the present writ petition, the workman petitioner has prayed for declaring him semi-permanent and permanent after completion of 2 and 10 years of service respectively in accordance with the Rajasthan Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereafter “the Rules of 1964” only). According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed in the year 1984 at the rate of Rs.12 per day and he continued on the said post and worked till 23.9.1986. Thereafter, his services were dispensed with without complying with the provisions of Section 2 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter “the Act of 1947” only) and by way of raising industrial dispute, he challenged the order of termination and after failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for adjudication and reference was answered in his favour and the respondent Department was directed to reinstate the petitioner with 30% back wages from the date of notification. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the order passed by this Court in the SB Civil Writ Petition No.2397/1997, which was preferred by State challenging the award dated 18.1.1997 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur upon application filed under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947, the petitioner was ordered to be taken back in service vide Annexure-3 and he was posted at TMC Division, I.G.N.P., Mohangarh vide order dated 28.11.1998 and he is working as such at the rate of Rs.12 per day from the date of reinstatement in service. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all other persons who were employed in the year 1984 were granted semi permanent status and permanent status in accordance with Rule 3 (iii) of the Rules of 1964 but the petitioner's case was pending before the Judge, Labour Court against his termination of service, therefore, his case was not 3 considered by the Department for granting status of semi-permanent and permanent and now the aforesaid writ petition filed by the State challenging the award has been dismissed today itself, therefore, the respondent are under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of semi-permanent and permanent status in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 (iii) of the Rules of 1964 while treating him the appointee of the year 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered in case of Sujan Singh Vs. State of Raj., reported in 1991 WLR 340 so also Om Prakash Meghwal's case reported in the same Digest and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for grant of semi-permanent and permanent status in accordance with Rule 3 (iii) of the Rules of 1964 after completion of two and ten years of service respectively. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that still the petitioner is getting salary on daily rate basis but respondents are now required to consider his case for grant of semi- permanent and permanent status. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate vehemently argued that the petitioner was not granted the benefits of semi-permanent and permanent status because the writ petition challenging the award passed by Judge, Labour 4 Court was pending before this Court. It is also submitted that the Rules of 1964 are not in existence and the same have been kept in abeyance by the State, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted semi permanent and permanent status in accordance with the Rules of 1964. After considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, it is obvious from the facts submitted before this Court that after dismissal of the writ petition challenging the award passed by Judge, Labour Court, the petitioner is entitled for continuance of service since 1984. The petitioner was reinstated in service after passing the order upon application moved under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 and he is in service since 1998. The writ petition filed by the State Government being SB Civil Writ Petition No.2397/97 against the award of Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur has been dismissed by this Court today itself, therefore, now there is no restriction or hurdle in the way of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of semi permanent and permanent status. Obviously, till 1995 when the Rules of 1964 were kept in abeyance a large number of workmen working in the Irrigation Department were given semi permanent and permanent status and now upon the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner is required to be treated in service since 1984. Hence, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled for 5 direction to be issued to the respondents for considering his case for grant of semi permanent and permanent status in accordance with the Rules of 1964. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant semi permanent and permanent status to the petitioner after completion of two and ten years of service respectively in accordance with the Rules of 1964 while taking into account his initial appointment from the year 1984. The petitioner will be entitled for all consequential benefits notionally upto the year 1997 when the award was passed by Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur but the petitioner will be entitled for consequential benefits w.e.f. 17.1.1997 – the date on which the award was passed by Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun