1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4339/1995. : : Kishanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 9.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Pradeep Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner Kishanal has filed this writ petition on 29.7.1995 with the prayer that order dated 27.4.1995, by which he was declared semi-permanent on the post of Beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1995, should be declared illegal to the extent that petitioner has not been made semi-permanent as Helper w.e.f. 12.4.1990 on which date he completed two years of service and the respondents be directed to declare him semi- permanent with effect from the date because petitioner not only completed two years of service, but was also possessing qualification of metric and intermediate. 2 3. Shri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondents under different orders declared several employees, who were initially appointed on the post of Beldar, semi-permanent on the strength of their qualification of middle and above. Learned counsel referred to the order dated 27.4.1995 and specifically argued that candidates at Serial No.7, 29, 37, 42, 52, 66, 71 and 86 mentioned in this order were subsequently declared semi- permanent on the post of Helper just because they possessed the qualification of middle and above. Reference was made to order dated 18.10.1994 (Annex.3) showing that candidate at Serial No.7 in the earlier order namely; Ram Avtar was declared semi-permanent. Similarly one Rohitash at Serial No.7 in the order dated 22.3.1995 was also made semi-permanent on the post of Helper by subsequent order. In this manner, all these candidates were made semi- permanent by orders dated 18.10.1994 and 22.3.1995 because of their qualification, but the case of petitioner was not at all considered. It was argued that a different and special treatment was given to these candidates because on their appointment, they were minor and mostly appointed on compassionate ground, but respondents decided to count their services for the purpose of semi-permanent from the 3 date when they attained 18 years of age and they were made semi-permanent on the post of Beldar on 27.4.1995. Subsequently they were declared semi-permanent on the post of Helper by order dated 18.10.1994 and 22.3.1995. Petitioner who was initially appointed as Beldar on 13.4.1988 has throughout having qualification of middle, therefore, case of petitioner should have been also considered in the same light and these persons, who later attained majority of 18 years, should have been considered junior to petitioner. Learned counsel also referred to order dated 20.91995 and submitted that by this order a large number of persons, who were initially appointed on the post of Beladar were declared semi-permanent on the post of work charged helper in compliance of order passed by this Court, whereas direction in those judgments was to simply declare them as semi- permanent with consequential benefits. The respondents however declared such of the work charged Beldars as semi- permanent on the post of Helper, who had qualification of middle and above, but in doing so many of the persons were declared semi-permanent on the post of Helper in the same PHED Circle, Alwar, where the petitioner was working, who were appointed later than the petitioner on the post of Beldar. Reference was made to the cases of all the aforesaid 4 candidates. It was argued that respondents by order dated 20.9.1995, which was purported to have been passed in compliance of judgment of this Court, 55 persons, who were originally engaged as Beldar, were made semi-permanent on the basis of their qualification of middle and above. In all these 55 persons, only four persons namely; Bhupendra Kumar, Suresh Chand Saini, Kamal Kishore and Kishan Lal were senior to the petitioner and except these four, and other 51 persons, who were so made semi-permanent on the post of Helper, who were juniors to petitioner. Learned counsel produced copy of judgment passed by this Court in Kishori Lal & Ors. Vs. Chief Engineer, PHED & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.331/1994 decided on 28.1.1994 and Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Chief Engineer, PHED & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.381/1994 and other connected two writ petitions decided on 2.2.1994, copies thereof were produced alongwith additional affidavit. By citing these judgments, learned counsel argued that all that was directed by this Court that petitioners should be conferred semi-permanent status immediately and after initial date of their engagement and be then granted consequential benefits. No direction to confer them semi-permanent on the post of Helper was given because all these persons were initially engaged as Beldar. 5 Even then on the basis of fact that these persons were having qualification of VIII class and above, were conferred semi-permanent status. Merely because petitioner has not filed writ petition, his case ought not to have been ignored more particularly when petitioner was also serving in Alwar District itself in which all these persons were conferred semi- permanent status on the post of Helper. The writ petition be, therefore, be allowed and respondents be directed to accord him semi-permanent upon completion of two years of his date appointment with all consequential benefits. 4. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that as far as persons, who were granted semi-permanent status by orders dated 18.10.1994 and 22.3.1995, they were those who were initially appointed on compassionate ground and at that time of appointment, they were minor and, therefore, their services were counted from the date they completed age of 18 years. Otherwise all these persons were senior to petitioner. In so far as 51 persons, who were made semi-permanent on the post of Helper, learned counsel submitted that in their case, there were specific judgments passed by this Court and case of petitioner cannot be treated 6 similar to those persons. Petitioner could not be granted semi-permanent status on the post of Helper just because he was not qualified. No person junior to petitioner was granted semi-permanent status on the post of Helper. Petitioner was rightly not granted semi-permanent status on the post of Helper. Petitioner was granted semi-permanent status on the post on which he was actually appointed i.e. the post of Beldar. So far as candidates, who were granted semi- permanent status by order dated 26.9.1992, even from perusal of that order it appears that all eights persons were initially appointed earlier than the appointment of petitioner. There is no case of discrimination. The writ petition is, therefore, be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions. Although it may be a fact that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Beldar on 13.4.1988 and was granted semi-permanent status on 1.1.1995 on that post but what is being contented by petitioner is that many such persons, who were like him working on the post of Beldar, were given semi-permanent status on the post of Helper on the premise that they 7 possessed the qualification of middle and above. Petitioner has contended that he is possessing qualification of inter mediate and so far as the qualification is concerned, he was fully eligible to be treated at par with them. Contention of respondents that all such persons, who were conferred semi- permanent status on the post of Helper by order dated 18.10.1994 and 22.3.1995 were appointed earlier than the petitioner and their services for the purpose of granting semi- permanent status was counted from the date they attained majority cannot be accepted because by applying that analogy, the respondents deemed their initial appointment from the date they completed age of 18 years and that should be taken as the date of their initial appointment. In the case of 51 persons granted such semi-permanent status by order dated 18.10.1994 and 16 persons by order dated 22.3.1995, perusal of these orders would show that all these persons attained the age of majority after 23.4.1988, which is the date of initial appointment of petitioner. Even if this argument of respondents is accepted, petitioner has ample material on record to show that many of the persons like him, who were initially appointed as Beldar much later than the petitioner in Alwar Division itself, were granted semi- permanent status on the post of Helper, purportedly in 8 compliance of judgments passed by this Court in Yogesh Kumar (supra) and Kishori Lal (supra). A perusal of these two judgments does not show that any such direction was passed by this court that even though petitioners were appointed on the post of Beldar, yet they should be granted semi- permanent status on the post of Helper. Such decision was taken by the respondents on their own because they maintained that these persons were having qualification of VIII class and above. This Court in writ petition filed by Kishori Lal (supra) noted all their arguments that they were initially appointed on muster roll basis as Helper and in other three writ petitions in Yogesh Kumar, Kamal Kishore Saini and Griraj Singh (supra), the facts as noticed by the Court in the judgment clearly show that their claim before the Court that they were engaged as daily wages employees. It was not asserted that they were engaged on the post of Helper. Those petitioners approached this Court even after they completed service of more than 5-6 years, they were not granted semi-permanent status. This Court in those cases merely directed that they should be granted semi-permanent status soon upon completion of two years of service and be granted all consequential benefits. Reference to all these three writ petitions is made in the order dated 20.9.1995 and 9 the petitioners in those writ petitions were straightaway conferred with semi-permanent status on the post of Helper. The case of petitioner was not considered in like manner though he was senior to them and other persons, who were conferred semi-permanent by the same order. Action of respondents is thus wholly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is, therefore, held entitle to similar treatment as was accorded to many of his juniors. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant semi-permanent status to the petitioner with effect from the date he completed two years on 13.4.1990, of his service from his initial date of appointment i.e. 13.4.1988. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as were granted to above referred to juniors. Compliance of this judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.H/ 10.