CW 2692/99 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2692/99 State of Raj. Versus Ram Kanya & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 09/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Shiv Lal Meena, Dy.G.A., for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing award passed by Industrial Tribunal, Kota dated 29th April, 1998 whereby respondent- workman has been granted benefit of semi- permanent status w.e.f. 1st April, 1987 as she has joined service on daily wages basis on 16th August, 1980. Earlier writ petition was dismissed by this court. However, reasons for rejection were not assigned, as such the petitioner preferred appeal against the said order dated 29th July, 1999 and the Division Bench while disposing of appeal preferred by petitioner on 17th March, 2008 allowed special appeal only on the premise that reasons have not been assigned by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. As such, matter has been remitted to learned Single Judge to examine the grievance raised by petitioner afresh. Respondent-workman was appointed on daily wages basis on 16th August, 1980 in the office of petitioner. Despite her continuous working, she CW 2692/99 [2] was denied the benefit of semi-permanent status on completion of 2 & 10 years of service. She approached the conciliation officer and finally a reference was made by appropriate government for adjudication with regard to grant of semi- permanent and permanent status to respondent taking note of her initial appointment dated 16th August, 1980 w.e.f. 16th August, 1982 and 16th August, 1990. Petitioner filed their written statement before Industrial Tribunal in which it was averred that from 1982-83 for few months she had remained absent and for some period she had worked under NREP Scheme and taking note of her service of continuous two years of 1985-86 & 86- 87 from 1988 she has been granted semi-permanent status w.e.f. 1st April, 1990. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the material on record, finally observed that respondent-workman was initially appointed from 16th August, 1980 she had worked for 240 days and had continuously worked in the employment of petitioner in the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and accordingly, considered appropriate to grant the benefit of semi-permanent status to her w.e.f. 1st April, 1987 as 2 years satisfactory service has to be completed by incumbent for consideration for grant of semi-permanent status under Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1964. However, it is relevant to mention that the apex court in the judgment, of which reference has been made in Para 18 of Tribunal dated 29th October, 1991 and 25th July, 1994 the benefit of grant of semi-permanent and permanent status has been extended to employees working in CW 2692/99 [3] the Forest department as well. So far her claim with respect to permanent status on completion of 10 years of service is concerned, the Tribunal after appreciation declined the said relief. Counsel is unable to point out as to what is the error which learned Tribunal has committed in granting the benefit of semi-permanent status to respondent-workman w.e.f. 1st April, 1987 and this is also not disputed that she is working in the office of petitioner since 16th August, 1980 and has completed 2 years satisfactory service which is contemplated under Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1964 for grant of semi-permanent status to employees who are employed on daily wages basis. I have gone through the impugned award dated 29th April, 1998 and does not find any manifest error committed by Tribunal in granting benefit of semi-permanent status to respondent-workman w.e.f. 1st April, 1987 which may call for interference. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA2692CW1999 9-4.doc