SBCWP1639/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1639/1997 Yogeshwar Sharma and Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 16.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Ms. Shweta Pareek for Shri Sanjay Pareek, Counsel for petitioner Shri Hemant Mathur, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition was filed by petitioners in the year 1997 aggrieved by order dated 04.06.1996 (Annexure-7) thereby the respondents promoted Shri Satpal Singh, Helper, on the post of Driver and conferred upon him semi-permanent status of that post. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner No.1 who was initially appointed Helper vide order dated 01.04.1982 and petitioner No.2 was appointed as Helper on 01.02.1982 whereas Satpal was appointed on the same post in September, 1983. Petitioners as well as Satpal were also ever since required to SBCWP1639/1997 // 2 // discharge duties of Driver. However, wage of the post of Driver, on daily wages basis, was sanctioned to Satpal with effect from 19.07.1991 and no such benefit was extended to petitioners. He was even made semi-permanent status on that post with effect from 18.07.1993 and fixed in regular pay scale of post of Driver i.e. 950-1680. The petitioners have not been granted such benefit. Ms. Shweta Pareek, holding brief of Shri Sanjay Pareek, learned counsel for petitioners, invited attention of the Court towards plea set up by petitioners in Para Nos.1, 4 and 6, giving initial date of appointment of the petitioners as well as Shri Satpal and asserting that he was junior to them and argued that this plea has not been controverted by respondents; they only say that Satpal was merely engaged on daily wages basis on the post of Driver, therefore, it could not be treated case of promotion. Further the learned counsel submitted that Satpal was engaged on daily wages basis as driver and thereafter was conferred with semi-permanent status of that post, the same post could be provided for petitioners as well. It was nothing but a promotion and the petitioners till date have SBCWP1639/1997 // 3 // not been granted such promotion, although learned counsel submits that petitioners have been throughout discharging duties of post of Driver whenever they are required to discharges duties of Driver and have also been paid salary in pay scale of Driver. Learned counsel for petitioners, in support of this submission produced copies of log book as also pay slips showing payment of salary to petitioners in pay scale of driver when they discharged the duties of said post. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that now the respondents have number of vacant posts available with them, and they should consider case of petitioners for promotion on the post of Driver, keeping in view the fact that they have been discharging duties of that post for a long time and are being paid pay scale of that post also and that now the posts of that cadre are also available with them. The learned counsel for respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that Satpal was not granted promotion but in fact he was engaged on the post of Driver and when he completed two years on that post he was granted semi-permanent status. Learned counsel submitted that seniority would loose its SBCWP1639/1997 // 4 // relevance once cadre of Satpal was changed from Helper to Driver and that his engagement as Driver cannot be described as promotion. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that there was no post available of Driver so as to consider the case of petitioners. The argument of learned counsel for respondents to oppose the present writ petition, cannot be upheld. It cannot be accepted that Shri Satpal was engaged as Driver whereas he was working with respondents in same Division on the post of Helper. His argument is that he should be merely taken as a fresh engagement by way of change of cadre and not promotion. Even if it is taken as fresh engagement by change of cadre, the same procedure could be applied in the case of petitioners, who too, like Satpal, were discharging duties of Driver. Even now they have been discharging the duties on the post of Driver, and are being paid in the pay scale of Driver whenever they were required to discharge the duties of Driver. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order of appointment of the SBCWP1639/1997 // 5 // petitioners as Driver. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//