CW 892/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.892/06 Govind Lal Nayak Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 11/09/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, for petitioner Mr. J.K. Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that despite he is in service since 1st August, 1984, but still he has not been considered for grant of semi-permanent/permanent status in terms of R.3(3) & 3(2) of Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 [“Rules, 1964”]. Petitioner initially joined service as Cattle Guard on 1st August, 1984. However, his services were terminated on 1st February, 1988 which was assailed by him under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the learned Labour Court while answering the reference made by the appropriate government set aside the order of termination vide award dt.25th August, 1999 and directed the respondents to reinstate him in service with 30% back wages. The award was challenged by the respondents by filing CW No.2416/01 which was dismissed vide judgment dt. 11th December, 2002 [Ann.1] and after dismissal of writ petition, petitioner was reinstated in CW 892/06 [2] service vide order dt.10th November, 2003 of which reference has been made by the respondents in Para 4 of their reply and he was posted at Rang Shahabad. However, petitioner is continuously working thereafter, but when he was not granted the status of semi-permanent/permanent status under the Rules, 1964, he approached this court by filing instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been reinstated in service, he is entitled for all the benefits including continuity and other service benefits from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1st August, 1984. As such, respondents were under legal obligation to grant him the benefit of semi- permanent/permanent status in terms of R.3(3) & 3 (2) of Rules, 1964, which has been arbitrarily denied to him. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition where in Para 6 it has been averred that petitioner's claim for seeking benefit of semi and permanent status has been examined by the respondents and proposal has been sent to the headquarter way back in December, 2004 and as soon as the State Government grants sanction, his claim for semi/permanent/permanent status will be considered in accordance with law. CW 892/06 [3] R.3(2) & 3(3) of the Rules, 1964 caste obligation upon the respondents to consider such work-charged employees who have completed 2 yrs. & 10 years' satisfactory service became entitled for grant of semi-permanent/permanent status and relevant R.3(2) & 2(3) which are relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced as under: “3(2) Employees, who have been in service for ten years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employees provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. 3(3) Employees in continuous service for two years or more except those covered by sub-rule (1), shall be eligible for the status of semi-permanent work-charged employees or of semi-permanent regular technical staff, provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory.” So far as present petitioner is concerned, he was initially appointed in August, 1984 and once his termination has been set aside and was ordered to be reinstated in service, it goes without saying that he became entitled for all the service benefits on account of being reinstated from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1st August, 1984 and in these circumstances, certainly he became entitled for grant of semi- permanent/permanent status in terms of R.3(3) & 3 (2) of Rules, 1964. However, respondents have sent proposal to the State Government as referred to in Para 6, but the ultimate fact remains that CW 892/06 [4] petitioner has not been granted benefit of semi- permanent/permanent status to which he was legally entitled for. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of semi-permanent/permanent status in terms of R.3(3) & 3(2) of Rules, 1964 taking his initial appointment from 1st August, 1984 into consideration with all consequential benefits. Necessary orders be passed for compliance within three months. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA892CW06 11-9.doc