1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER (1) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3386/1995 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan & others (2) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2714/1995 Subhash Chand Jain Versus The State of Rajasthan & others (3) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4551/1996 Vishnu Dutt Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan & others DATE OF ORDER --- August 07,2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Vigyan Shah,for the petitioners Mr.Gajanand Mishra Manav, Dy.Govt.Counsel BY THE COURT (1) By this common order, three writ petitions – SBCWP No.3386/1995, 2714/1995 and 4551/1996 are being decided. (2) For deciding the controversy raised in these writ petitions, the facts of SBCWP No.3386/1995 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & others are taken. (3) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for absorbing him on the post of Lower Division Clerk as per amended Rule 7 2 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (in short `the Rules of 1957') on the ground that he is continuously working on the post of Store Munshi and further claimed pay of the post of Store Munshi. Alternatively, it has also been prayed by the petitioner that he may be promoted to the post of Store Munshi. (4) There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed under the Workcharge Rules but the dispute raised by the parties is that the petitioner was not discharging the duties of Store Munshi but from the documents (Annexure-1 to 5) in SBCWP No.3386/1995, it is clear that work in the reading section was taken from the petitioners. Subsequently, ledger/collection of bill work was taken from him. Similar is the position of discharging other clerical duties by the petitioners in other two writ petitions. In two writ petitions – CWP No. 2714/1995 and 4551/96,the petitioners are still discharging the duties of Store Munshi and in third case without there being any interim order, the petitioner is also discharging the same duties. 3 (5) Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bharat Singh V. State of Rajasthan SBCWP No.3874/1995 decided on 23.8.1996 wherein direction was issued to declare the concerned workman semi permanent under rule 3(3) of the Workcharge Service Rules, 1964 and while declaring so, the principle of equal pay for equal work is to be taken note of and the said regularisation would be from the date of junior LDC/Store Munshi. (6) Counsel for the respondents has disputed the issuance of the certificates/letters issued by the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer but has not been able to substantiate his argument by any document that the petitioners have not discharged the duties of clerical nature. (7) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submission of counsel for the parties. (8) Before proceeding further, I would like to quote first para and last para of the judgment of Bharat Singh (supra) which was upheld by the Division Bench on 4.2.2007 in DBSAW No.1298/1996 State of Rajasthan 4 V.Bharat Singh against which Review Petition No.25/2008 was filed and the same was also dismissed on 5.3.2008. "इस ǐरट याͬचका मɅ ्ऺाथȸ ने Ǔनàन अनुतोष याͬचत ͩकया है: (अ)्ऺǓतप¢ीगण के नाम Ǔनदȶश Ǒदये जावे ͩक वे ्ऺाथȸ को èटोर मुंशी/कǓनƵ ͧलͪपक के पद पर पाǐरणाͧमक पǐरलाभɉ सǑहत ǓनयुͫƠ/ अƨ[ èथायी करɅ। (ब)्ऺǓतप¢ीगण को Ǔनदȶश Ǒदये जावे ͩक ्ऺाथȸ को समान काय[ समान वेतन के ͧसƨाÛत के अनुसार उसके Ʈारा ͩकये गये कायɟ के ्ऺǓतफल èवǾप उसे उस Ǔतͬथ से समान वेतन अदा करे िजस Ǔतͬथ से वह èटोर मुंशी/ कǓनƵ ͧलͪपक के पद पर काय[ कर रहा है।'' ''(9) पǐरमणामत: यह ǐरट याͬचका èवीकार कȧ जाती है और ्ऺǓतप¢ीगण को यह Ǔनदȶश Ǒदया जाता है ͩक ्ऺाथȸ को काय[ ्ऺभारȣ कम[चारȣ सेवा Ǔनयम 1964 के Ǔनयम 3(3) के अÛतग[त èटोर मुंशी/ कǓनƵ ͧलͪपक के पद पर समèत पाǐरणाͧमक पǐरलाभɉ सǑहत अƨ[ èथायी घोͪषत ͩकया जावे और ऐसी घोषणा करते समय ्ऺǓतप¢ीगण समान काय[ समान वेतन के ͧसƨाÛत को Ǻͪƴगत रखते हुए उस Ǔतͬथ को भी सàमुख रखɅगे िजस Ǔतͬथ से ्ऺाथȸ कǓनƵ ͧलͪपक/ èटोर मुंशी के पद पर काय[रत है।'' (9) I am in respectful agreement with the judgment of Bharat Singh (supra). The contention of counsel for the petitioners have force and that of counsel for the State are without any force. (10)In the result, all the three petitions are allowed in the manner that the respondents are directed to declare the petitioners semi permanent on completion of 2 years' service from the date of their initial appointment or with effect from the date any person junior to them discharging the duties of Store Munshi has been declared semi permanent, with the same benefit. The 5 petitioners will also be entitled to all consequential benefits. (Prem Shanker Asopa)J. Gopal