1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6465/2006 (Jan Mohd. vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Order :: 12.05.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Javed Moyal, for the petitioner. Mr.N.K.Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner was initially appointed as labour in the PHED Department, Jaisalmer on daily wages on 12th July, 1986 and he was continuously working on the said post, but ultimately his services were terminated w.e.f. 01st January, 1991. Against the said termination order, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner and after failure of conciliation proceedings, matter was referred to the appropriate government for reference. The appropriate government referred the dispute of illegal termination of the petitioner to learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 30th April, 2002, learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur passed an award in favour of petitioner workman and it was ordered that termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 01st January, 1991 is in contravention of Section 25-F (a) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with 25% back wages 2 from the date of reference which is 09th July, 1997. In pursuance of the said award, petitioner was reinstated in service and till today he is working as daily wages employee. The case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 22nd January, 1993 respondent-department has granted semi permanent status to as many as 426 persons on their respective posts upon which they were performing their duties. The petitioner is claiming his right for declaring him semi permanent status as well as permanent status at the strength of the fact that so many junior persons who were appointed after the appointment of petitioner in the year 1986 onwards were granted benefits of semi permanent status. I have perused the order dated 22nd January, 1993 whereby as many as 426 persons who were provided appointment even after the appointment of petitioner in the year 1986 were granted semi permanent status, therefore, according to Rule 3(3) of the Rajasthan Work-charge Employees Rules, 1964, petitioner is entitled for semi permanent status after completion of two years of service as well as for permanent status because Judge, Labour Court while passing award has specifically ordered that petitioner will be entitled for continuity in service. Meaning thereby, respondents are required to treat petitioner in service since 1986. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner 3 is squarely covered with the judgment of Om Prakash Meghwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1991 WLR 299 in which this Court has held that employees who have completed ten years of service is entitled for permanent status. In this case, obviously number of junior persons were granted semi permanent status by the respondents and they are enjoying fruits of semi permanent status, so also, permanent status, therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant semi permanent status to the petitioner from the date his junior persons were granted semi permanent status, so also, permanent status after completion of ten years of service. Further it is directed that petitioner shall be given all benefits while treating him as regular/permanent employee and shall grant benefit of selection scale also in accordance with the order passed by the state government for providing selection scale. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. If respondents will not comply with the order within three months, then petitioner will be entitled for interest upon arrears at the rate of 6% per annum. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/-