1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Rajendra Singh. Versus The Registrar,Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3830/2006 ... Tulsi Das. Versus The Registrar,Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3826/2006 ... Baba Singh. Versus The Registrar,Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3827/2006 ... Lal Chand. Versus The Registrar,Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3828/2006 and Mahesh Singh. Versus The Registrar,Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3829/2006 Date of Order: May 18, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR 2 Mr. Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioners. Mr. D.S. Rajvi, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: All these five writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being heard and decided together taking the facts emerging in SBCWP 3830/2006 as a leading case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the leading case, i.e. SBCWP No.3830/2006, are that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on 1-10-1986. He was given the status of semi-permanent vide order dated 19-1-1995 with effect from 26-9-1994 along with as many as 26 persons including the other petitioners herein. The petitioner was given permanent status vide order dated 11-2-1997 with effect 1-10-1996 on completion of ten years' satisfactory service. He was granted the first selection scale on completion of 9 years service w.e.f. 25-9-2003 calculating his services from 26-9-1994 when the status of semi- permanent was conferred on him. The petitioner claims the first selection scale on completion of nine years' service from the date of his initial engagement i.e. 1-10-1986, whereas the respondents granted him the first selection scale counting the period of nine years from the date when the petitioner was 3 conferred the semi-permanent status, i.e. 26-9-1994. Hence this writ petition. Reply to the writ petitions have been filed by the respondents stating therein that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts. It has been contended that the petitioners herein and other similarly situated persons earlier filed a joint writ petition being SBCWP No.2747/1992, titled Tulsi Ram & ors. Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner through the Registrar & ors., including the petitioners herein as petitioners therein also, which came to be decided vide order Annx.R/2 dated 19-3-1998, but this fact has not been disclosed by the petitioners herein in the instant writ petitions filed by them. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ petitions is by and large similar to the controversy raised in the earlier writ petition No. 2747/1992 as in the earlier writ petition also, the petitioners therein, including the present petitioners, sought a direction to the respondents to regularise their services on their respective posts on completion of two years' service with all consequential benefits. For the purpose of two years of service, they sought the relief that the two years service be counted with effect from the date of their initial appointments. In the instant case also, the petitioners herein seek conferring them the status of semi-permanent on completion of two years service from the 4 date of their initial appointment. On merit, learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioners were engaged on 1- 10-1988 and eligible for conferment of semi-permanent status on completion of two years service provided their exist the sanction posts or the sanction is accorded for such conferment of semi-permanent status. It has also been stated that the vacant post became available in the year 1994 and accordingly the sanction to confer the semi-permanent status was accorded on 26-9-1994 and from that date, the petitioner has been conferred the semi-permanent status; however, on completion of ten years' service, the petitioner has been conferred the status of permanent, but so far as computing the period for grant of first selection scale is concerned, the date on which the status of semi-permanent was conferred, has to be taken for reckoning nine years service and from that date, the respondents granted the first selection grade to the petitioner, i.e. on completion of nine years service from the date of conferment of semi- permanent status. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ramu Ram & ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors., 2002 (2) WLN 558. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Smt. Manju Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 2006 (1) CDR 896 (Raj.) (DB); Naurang Ram & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 2004 (5) 5 Western Law Cases (Raj.) 156; Shelendra Vyas Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & ors., DBCWP No. 1222/1999; and Single Bench decision Tara Chand Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 2005 (3) CDR 2147 (Raj.); and Rajasthan State Drivers & Technical Association Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 2005 (2) CDR 1059 (Raj.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by them. In Naurang Ram & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), the question came up before the Division Bench of this Court was in respect of the claim of petitioners therein that on completion of two years continuous service on work charged establishment, the workmen on work charge establishment are conferred with the status of semi-permanent status. The petitioners therein had completed two years service on 1-1- 1991, however they were conferred with the semi-permanent status with effect from 3-1-1995, which led them to file the writ petition. In that case, the writ petition, on being filed before the learned Single Judge, came to be dismissed on the ground that because semi-permanent status was granted to the petitioners from 1-1-1995 and not prior to this, it will have to be inferred that their previous record of service was not totally up to mark 6 and because of unsatisfactory service record prior to 1995 it will be treated as an implied reason for not granting semi-permanent status to the petitioners therein when the same became due. The Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “We are unable to subscribe to this view of the learned Single Judge about the assumption of fact concerning the unsatisfactory service of record. No inference can be drawn against the incumbents merely because of delayed conferment of semi- permanent status where the Rules require conferment of semi-permanent status on expiry of two years continuous service except in case where the service record of an employee, in the opinion of the competent authority is not satisfactory. It is for the competent authority to say why conferment of semi-permanent status did not follow automatically on completion of two years of continuous service by placing cogent material about unsatisfactory service record on record. By raising such presumption, the petition was dismissed in limine without issuing notice to the respondents and respondents plea was not before the Court. The respondents have now filed the reply to the writ petition in this appeal. In the reply, the respondents categorically admitted in para 4 of the reply that averments made in para 4 of the appeal are not disputed on the basis of service book and personal files of continuous service and regular grade increments and work being satisfactory. Along with the reply, no material has been placed to sustain the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge merely because of delayed recommendation for recognising semi permanent status of the petitioners, on completion of two years continuous service on work- charged establishment. No adverse inference could have been drawn against them which, in fact, turned out to be unfounded.” In Smt. Manju Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. 7 (supra), the appellant therein was initially appointed on job-work basis against a vacant post of Computer Operator on the fixed salary of Rs.1200/- , thereafter fix salary of Rs.2000/- per month was granted to her. The prayer of the appellant in the writ petition was that since she had continuously worked from 1994 to December 1997, she was entitled to semi permanent status as was granted to similarly situated employee, viz. Rajesh Singhal. The respondents in their reply however averred that Rajesh Singhal, Alok Mittal and Vinod Singh were engaged on daily wages basis, while the appellant was appointed on contract basis, therefore the case of the appellant was distinguishable with that of Rajesh Singhal, Alok Mittal and Vinod Singh. Agreeing with the reply of the respondents, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. The Division Bench of this Court held that “having closely scrutinized the material on record, we are of the view that the appellant after completion of two years of service was entitled to semi permanent status. The case of appellant in our opinion is not distinguishable with that of the cases of Vinod Singh and Alok Mittal.” On these premises, the Division Bench held that the appellant therein was entitled to semi-permanent status as have been provided to Vinod Singh and Alok Mittal. In Rajasthan State Drivers & Technical Association Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), the learned Single Judge 8 of this Court observed as under:- “Here in this case, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents in reply that members of petitioner Association were not entitled to grant of semi-permanent status or the competent authority after considering their case found them not suitable for grant of above status and it is also not in the reply of the respondents that there was no sanctioned post at that time. It appears that the respondents were under an impression that status of semi-permanent can be granted only from the date of next financial year without taking care of factual aspect whether there was sanctioned post or not and whether members of petitioner Association could have been given semi-permanent status on the date when they completed 2 years of service, therefore, the order passed by the State Government appears to be without consideration of relevant rules. If an employee is eligible for grant of semi-permanent status as per rules and there is no reason available for not granting semi-permanent status, then State Government cannot pick and choose the employees for grant of semi-permanent status, some from the date of completion of 2 years and some from the date in future, therefore, the matter is required to be reconsidered by the State Government so far it relates to the members of petitioner Association named in Schedule annexed to the writ petition.” In Narsa Ram & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. 2005 (3) CDR 2356 (Raj.), this Court held as under:- “In view of the reply given by the respondents, there is no dispute with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners for the grant of semi-permanent status under rule 3 of the Rules of 1964. The only reason to deny the same as given by the respondents is that the State Government has not enhanced the cadre strength. The concept of cadre is not at all applicable under the Work Charged Service Rules as the work charged services are against the planned works, therefore, the stand taken by the respondents is totally misconceived. I do not see any reason for not extending the semi-permanent status to the 9 petitioners on completion of two years of service from the date of their initial appointment if their services are satisfied.” In that case, in reply to para No.7 of the writ petition, it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioners are eligible for status of semi-permanent employees on sanction of cadre-posts by the Government and presently no cadre-posts are available with the respondents. A similar controversy came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramu Ram & ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. (surpa), the Division Bench quoted rule 3 of Work Charge Rules, 1964, which reads as under:- “(1) Work Charged employees (including the regular technical staff of Water Works Department) for the purpose of these rules shall be divided into the following three categories:- (i)Permanent status, (ii)Semi-permanent status, and (iii)Casual. Provided, however, that nothing in these rules shall entitle any work-charged employee, categorised permanent or semi-permanent to claim the status of benefits of permanency or semi-permanency to which regular Government employee is entitled under the Rajasthan Service Rules. (2)Employees, who have been in service for ten years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employees provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority is satisfactory (Emphasis added). (3)Employees in continuous service for two years or 10 more except those covered by Sub-rule (1) shall be eligible for the status of semi-permanent work charged employees or of semi-permanent regular technical staff, provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. (4)No employee shall acquire the status specified in Sub-rules (2) and (3) without the prior sanction of the competent authority, as may be notified by the Head of the Department from time to time. Clarification:- It has been observed that in the matter of declaring of semi-permanent or permanent status of work-charged employees under rule 3 of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B&R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964, uniform policy is not being adopted by the departments where work-charged employees are engaged. The casual work-charged employees are declared as semi-permanent and allowed regular pay scale with other benefits like leave, medical facilities, travelling and daily allowances etc. as soon as they complete 2 years under the plea that it is obligatory to declare them semi-permanent on completion of 2 years according to Rule 3 of the above said Rules. It is clarified that Rule 3 (3) only mentions that an employees becomes entitled to be declared as semi- permanent on completion of two years service provided his service record is satisfactory and sanctioned post is available besides other conditions, such as age at the time of recruitment and medical fitness etc., are fulfilled. It is, therefore, enjoined upon all the concerned departments that the casual workers should not be declared semi-permanent on completion of two years service only and allowed pay scales unless other conditions mentioned above are also fulfilled (Vide D.O.P. Notification No.F.5 (11) DOP (A-II/74) dated 19-8-1980.” This Court held that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 provides 11 that an employee in continuous service for two years or more shall be eligible for the status of semi-permanent and Sub-rule (4) further provides that the condition precedent for grant of such semi-permanent status is to have prior sanction of the competent authority as may be notified by the Head of the Department. The effect of declaring a work-charged employee as semi-permanent carries with it certain benefits i.e. he shall be entitled to a regular pay scale under Rule 12 and increments under Rule 13 and Dearness Allowance etc. under Rule 14. Similarly he will be entitled to benefits of leave as given in Rule 15 and other necessary facilities like medical under Rule 21 and provident fund under Rule 22. Therefore, there can be no escape from the conclusion that it involves financial implication. In this context the Sub-rule (4) which provides for a sanction of the post prior to giving of status of semi-permanent employees gathers importance. On considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred therein, the Division Bench held that a direction to grant semi-permanent status to a work charge employee in absence of sanction by the State Government under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 amounts to giving direction to fill up the vacancy without exactly knowing the financial burden. The Division Bench further held as under:- “Thus, the interpretation making any provision as surplusage is not permissible. The rule of interpretation does not permit to render any 12 particular part of the provisions as otiose. The presumption is that the Legislature has not left any lacuna and the courts are bound to effect every word as none of the words interpreted in the rules or enactments can be rendered meaningless. While interpreting the courts are bound to give full effect to each and every word contained in the provision. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that a work charge employee on completion of two years service only becomes eligible for consideration of confirming semi-permanent status. The said status cannot be confirmed unless the service rendered by him is found to be satisfactory and sanctioned post is available besides other conditions such as age at the time of recruitment and medical fitness etc. Even if the petitioners are entitled to grant of semi- permanent status after completing 2 years continuous service from their date of initial appointment, it will not be sound exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian to take upon itself the function of the statutory authority by directing to grant to workman semi-permanent status. The only direction which can be given to the concerned authority or the court is to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the Rules.” Another Division Bench of this Court in Shelendra Vyas Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner & anr., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1222/1999 decided on 13-3-2003, considering the Division Bench decision in Ramu Ram's case (supra), observed as under:- “In view of the aforesaid Bench decision, it is apparent that the case of the petitioner regarding date on which he should be conferred with semi- permanent status has to be decided by enquiring into the availability of post at particular time after he had completed two years satisfactory service and the persons available for confirmation of such status as on that date. Apparently, there is no dispute so far as availability of post and confirmation of semi- 13 permanent status on the petitioner with effect from 3-10-1988 when the order was made to Financial Controller of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner where the petitioners could be appointed during the confirmation with this semi-permanent status any date interior to that date shall have to be examined by the respondents.” In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, sub-rule (3) of rule 3 , as also sub-rule (4) of the Rules 1964 have not been considered, nor taken note of. The controversy involved in the instant case has been elobrately considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramu Ram & ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), wherein this Court categorically noticed that a direction to grant of semi-permanent status to a work-charge employee in absence of sanction by the State Government under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 amounts to giving direction to fill up the vacancy without exactly knowing the financial burden and further held that a work charge employee on completion of two years service only becomes eligible for consideration of confirming semi permanent status and such a status cannot be conferred unless the service rendered by him is found to be satisfactory and sanctioned post is available besides other conditions such as age at the time of recruitment and medical fitness etc. In the instant case, the respondents came with the case that on becoming a sanctioned post available, semi- 14 permanent status was granted to the petitioners. Thus, the stand taken by the respondents conferring the semi-permanent status to the petitioners on becoming available a sanction post, is strictly in conformity with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramu Ram & ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra). In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to the costs. The applications being IA Nos. 1075/2007,1076/2007, 1077/2007, 1078/2007 and 1079/2007 filed by the respective petitioners also stand dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs