1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5679/2004 (Gyan Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order :: 19.08.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.G.R. Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr.Draun Kaushik, for the respondents. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to delete word 'work charged' from his promotion order dated 19th May, 2003 (Annexure-4) and declare him regular appointee on the post of Jr. Draftsman. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as daily wages Tracer on 16th January, 1984 in the respondent – Urban Improvement Trust, Sri Ganganagar. Vide order dated 07th May, 1990 petitioner was declared as semi-permanent and pay scale of Rs.910-1520 was allowed to him and latter on he was given permanent status on the post of Tracer by the UIT, Sri Ganganagar. In the respondent UIT one temporary post of Jr. 2 Draftsman was converted as regular vacancy and petitioner was provided promotion after due consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the post of Jr. Draftsman. But while granting the said benefit of promotion vide Annexure-4 dated 19th May, 2003 on the post of Jr. Draftsman, it is observed in the order of promotion that Shri Gyan Chand (petitioner) working on the post of Tracer is hereby promoted on the post of Jr. Draftsman (Work Charged) in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. The case of petitioner is that the post of Tracer as well as Jr. Draftsman is not enumerated in the work charged cadre. The said post is in the regular cadre and promotion was granted to petitioner on a permanent post in regular cadre, therefore, petitioner prayed that the word used (work charged) in the promotion order may be quashed and respondents may be directed to treat petitioner as regularly promoted on the post of Jr. Draftsman on permanent regular post which is duly sanctioned. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner was engaged as work charged employee, but latter on he was granted semi permanent status on the post of Tracer as per the award passed by Judge, Labour Court dated 04th May, 2002 and while considering his candidature by the Departmental 3 Promotion Committee petitioner was promoted on the post of Jr. Draftsman in the work charged cadre vide order dated 19th May, 2003 (Annexure-4) in which there is no illegality. The petitioner was appointed as casual worker and latter on he was granted semi permanent status as per Work-charged Rules, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. I have considered rival submissions advanced by both learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, when petitioner was granted semi permanent status and permanent status vide order dated 07th May, 1990 and order dated 01st April, 1997 respectively on the post of Tracer after the award passed by the Judge, Labour Court (Annexure-R/1), then petitioner become regular employee of UIT. The case of petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion on the post of Jr. Draftsman which is promotional post in the channel from the post of Tracer and the post of Jr. Draftsman is not enumerated in the Work-charged Rules, then obviously the word (work charged) used in the order Annexure-4 dated 19th May, 2003 in front of post Jr. Draftsman is totally erroneous and contrary to the Rules. The petitioner is hereby declared as regular Jr. Draftsman. In this view of the matter, the word (work charged) 4 in the promotion order of petitioner to the post of Jr. Draftsman from the post of Tracer dated 19th May, 2003 is hereby declared illegal and the word (work charged) is hereby quashed and remaining part of the order shall remain in force. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/-