1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5827/96 Executive Engineer & Anr. vs. Shri Laxman Singh & Anr. Date of order : 12/1/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel for the petitioners. None present for the respondent. ****** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned award of the Labour Court. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the award of the Labour Court dated 28.10.1995 whereby the Labour Court answered the reference on the question whether action of the Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer, Land Settlement and Research Division-I, Kota in not promoting / appointing the respondent no.2 Laxman Singh on the post of Chowkidar was legal and valid. If not, what relief was he entitled to? The Labour Court held that action of Assistant Engineer is illegal and further that the respondent no.2 Laxman Singh is entitled to be promoted on the post of Survey Amin. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent was appointed on the post of Chowkidar with effect from 1.4.1979 and he had worked on the post of Amin in between from 1.6.1979 to 30.9.1979. For the aforesaid period, he was paid salary for the post of Amin. But then, he was again reverted to the post of Chowkidar. It was contended that once the work of Amin was finished, he was again posted as Chowkidar. The respondent was declared semi permanent on the post of Chowkidar with effect from 1.4.1982. So far as Shri Anil Kumar Saxena and Ramesh Mathur are concerned, they were directly appointed on the post of Survey Amin, therefore, the respondent could not compare his case with them. It is contended that promotions are to be made as per Rule 7 read with Rule 3 of the Worked Charge Rules and a Chowkidar can be promoted on the post of Met and therefore respondent could not claim his promotion on the post of Survey Amin. Even though, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent, but on the basis of material evidence, that was adduced before 3 the Labour Court and discussed in the award, it is evident that while the petitioner was appointed as Survey Amin on 1.6.1979, he was reverted back to the post of Chowkidar on 1.10.1979 and in between Anil Kumar Saxena was appointed on the post of Survey Amin straight away on 1.7.1979 and then Ramesh Mathur was also appointed on such post. If there was no post of Survey Amin, there was no question of giving appointment to Shri Anil Kumar Saxena and Ramesh Mathur in preference to the petitioner, who was already holding the post of Survey Amin. The Labour Court found that there are rules that the preference was to be given to existing employees of the department. The Labour Court also found that Anil Kumar Saxena was son of Raj Bahadur Saxena, who was working in the petitioner-department and Ramesh Mathur was brother of Shri G.L. Mathur, who was also working as Junior Engineer with the petitioner-department. The Labour Court found that undue benefit was given to them in order to deprive the respondent of his due entitlements. In view of the detailed discussion made 4 by the Labour Court and the evidence adduced before it, I do not find that the award of the Labour Court suffers from any such legal infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record, as may warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. A copy of this order be endorsed to respondent no.2 for information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/