1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 77/2008 RAM SINGH V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER :::: 28/02/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr.B.S.Charan, for Petitioner (s). Mr. B. R. Arora, for Respondent. Ms. Pratistha Dave, Dy. G. A. By this writ petition, the petitioner has made a challenge to the order at Annexure 18 dated 07.04.2007. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was given compensate appointment on the sad demise of erstwhile employee. The petitioner's initial appointment was made on the post of Jamadar vide order dated 01.10.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner continued in service without any complaint and, in that regard, he was also extended the benefit of Selection Scale vide the order dated 27th October, 1995. The petitioner was due for his promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector Grade II, but then the prayer of the petitioner 2 was not accepted, on account of an objection raised regarding his initial appointment on the post of Jamadar. It is further contended that the objection so raised on the ground that the post of Jamadar is filled otherwise by way of promotion and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been given compensate appointment on that basis, as otherwise, it is not categorized as Class IV service, whereas, as per Rules, it is otherwise a Class IV service. The request of the Municipal Board, Dungarpur for even grant of relaxation was not accepted, as the said prayer was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2007. Hence, the petitioner was forced to prefer this writ petition. The respondents have filed their reply and therein the reply so filed by the State Government, reveals that the facts already contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the reasoned that the necessary relaxation was not given vide the impugned order. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the initial appointment was wrongly given to the petitioner on the post of Jamadar. Thus, the petitioner cannot seek any consequential benefits, as the initial order of appointment 3 itself is not legal. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. The perusal of the order dated 01.10.1986 shows that the petitioner was given appointment as Jamadar on compensate basis and since then the petitioner is continuously working with the Municipal Board, Dungarpur to their satisfaction as nothing adverse has been stated by the Municipal Board. The fact further remains that the petitioner has already been allowed the benefit of Selection Scale which otherwise remains to be the pay scale of promotional post, hence there seems no justification for the respondent – State to pass the order impugned at Annexure 18. It is, however, necessary to further view this matter from another angle which is quite relevant, inasmuch as the petitioner was given compensate appointment. While granting compensate appointment, it is not necessary that it has to be necessarily given only on the initial post. In fact, compensate appointment can be offered, even on a higher post which otherwise are being done by the State by making appointments in Class II service, Class III service 4 and Class IV service. Thus, many of such compensate appointments remain on the promotional posts, like even appointment on the post of LDC, there exists ultimate promotion to the extent of 15% quota of Class IV employee. In that circumstances, if the logic taken by the respondent is also considered, then such compensate appointment given by the Government becomes illegal. It is nowhere provided that compensate appointment cannot be given on a promotional basis and, if the present matter is looked into, it is not even such a matter where the petitioner seems to have been given any deemed benefits, inasmuch as he was given appointment on the post of Jamadar which is otherwise falling in Class IV service, which is on lower pedestal. In such circumstances and even from the basis taken by the respondents for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner, further benefits become illegal, but a further fact remains that the petitioner, having been appointed on the post of Jamadar in 1986, it does not like nice on the part of the respondents to take such execuse as has been taken herein. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the 5 order Annexure 18 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefits arising out of appointment on the post of Jamadar in the year, 1986. There will no order as to costs. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd