SBCWP2539/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2539/1997 Raman Lal Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Date of Order ::: 10.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri C.P. Sharma for Shri D.K. Bhardwaj, Counsel for petitioner None present for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner. This writ petition was filed by petitioner Raman Lal Sharma way back in the year 1997 with prayer that respondents be directed to grant him status of permanent employee from the date other employees were declared permanent. Shri C.P. Sharma, brief holder of Shri D.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that petitioner was appointed as a Driver on daily rated basis on 30.08.1991. On 17.01.1994 the bus, which was being driven by him, met with an accident near Hanumangarh when his bus was on route Alwar to Sri Ganganagar. Petitioner sustained fracture in his leg. After some time he was taken on duty and again assigned the duty of driver. When petitioner was SBCWP2539/1997 // 2 // going from Alwar to Ajmer because of mistake in bus another accident took place on 30.09.1996 near Adarsh Nagar in Jaipur. Petitioner was still being treated as daily wage employee. His juniors, namely, Bhoop Singh and Umrao Singh were given status of permanent employee with effect from 07.10.1995. Subsequently another order was passed on 18.07.1996 granting permanent status to other employees. Respondents, in reply to writ petition, submitted that there is system of evaluating performance of Drivers appointed on daily wage basis for the purpose of their regularization/making them permanent. It is contended that on 16.12.1994 after being off from the duties at Sri Ganganagar route, the next duty of petitioner was at 8.45 AM on Behror route from where the petitioner duty was off at 1400 Hrs. On 16.12.1994 another driver Shri Sunder Singh was deployed for Sri Ganganagar route and scheduled departure time was at 1830 hours. Since petitioner himself was interested in going on Sri Ganganagar route with the bus at 1830 Hours, a request to this effect was made by him and on the basis of which he was sent on Sri Ganganagar route with the bus living at 1830 Hours. It is contended that it is totally incorrect that respondent has taken continuous SBCWP2539/1997 // 3 // duty from the petitioner. The accidents, as stated by petitioner, were due to his negligence and carelessness in driving the vehicle which has resulted in the accident. For the said accident, the petitioner was issued charge-sheet on 06.04.1996 and departmental proceedings are going on against him. On 03.09.1996 he was again sent on Alwar-Ajmer route where also due to his negligence and carelessness in driving the vehicle, he again caused accident, for which also another charge-sheet dated 06.11.1996 was issued to him and departmental proceedings are being proceeded against him. As per the performance of concerned daily wage drivers, their cases are examined by Depot Level Committees and it is the said Committees which examine the same on the basis of their conduct, behavior and work performance. The nature of job, conduct and efficiency level of such employees also play a significant role in regularization of driver and since one of those standards of petitioner as a driver was quite low and that he was found to have caused accident of bus entrusted to him at number of places, at that time he was not found suitable for being made permanent. This petition was filed based on the past event of the year 1996. It is not informed SBCWP2539/1997 // 4 // whether the petitioner is still serving the respondents. But, in any case, if the petitioner was in service with the respondents beyond 1996, he would certainly be entitled to consideration for regularization in service based on his performance, subsequent to the dates when two orders on 07.10.1995 and 18.07.1996 were passed making other daily rated drivers as permanent. In so far as non-making the petitioner permanent in the year 1995-96 is concerned, that action of the respondents cannot be said to be wholly unjustified or without any reason. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make a representation for consideration of his case for regularization beyond 1997 if otherwise he has not already been regularized in service. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//