- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7159/2005 (Asatulla Khan vs. Secretary, UIT, Jodhpur & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 25/7/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Manoj Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mr.Mahesh Thanvi, for UIT, Jodhpur. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case petitioner is claiming semi permanent and permanent status in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Rajasthan Work Charge Rules, 1964. The case of petitioner is that he was initially appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Tracer and he is continuing as such till today. The contention of petitioner is that his case was considered for grant of semi permanent and permanent status in accordance with Rules of 1964 and for the said purpose in the meeting of UIT, Jodhpur dated 22/8/2003 a decision was taken for granting benefit of regularisation on the post of Tracer to petitioner but for want of post the matter was referred to State Government for sanction of post. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since initial appointment petitioner is working on the post of Tracer in UIT, Jodhpur but he has not been granted semi permanent or - 2 - permanent status though his case was considered by the UIT, Jodhpur and a decision was taken for grant of permanent status but till today State Government has not granted sanction for the post, therefore, matter is pending for last many years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards large number of cases decided by this Court, more specifically the case of Om Prakash Meghwal and ors. vs. of Rajasthan & Ors. Reported in WLR 1991 (S) Raj. 299 in which learned Single Judge of this Court has specifically decided the similar controversy and held that work charge employees, who have completed two years of service are entitled for grant of semi permanent status and who have completed ten years of service as work charge employees are entitled for permanent status. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that indisputably Work Charge Rules were applicable in UIT when case of petitioner was considered, as is evident from Annex.7 to the writ petition. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled for semi permanent and permanent status but for want of post said benefit has not been granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention towards the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in WLR - 3 - 1991 (S) Raj 192 submitted that denial of semi permanent and permanent status is contrary to the Rules of 1964, therefore, petitioner is seeking direction for grant of said relief because he is serving from last more than 25 years on the post of Tracer. As per petitioner, UIT is autonomous body and for the purpose of granting semi permanent and permanent status there is no requirement in the Rules to get any sanction from Government, therefore, denial by the respondent UIT is illegal and arbitrary. Per contra, learned counsel for the UIT, Jodhpur argued that for want of post it is not possible for the UIT to grant semi permanent or permanent status to the petitioner on the post of Tracer. It is submitted that sanction of State Government is necessary, therefore, resolution passed by the UIT has been forwarded to the State Government but still no sanction has been received, therefore, petitioner can not claim any direction as prayed by him. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. In this case admittedly, petitioner is working since 1983 on the post of Tracer and performing his duties as such, therefore, it is expected from the respondents to grant legitimate right of - 4 - petitioner with regard to semi permanent and permanent status as per Work Charge Rules. The respondent UIT is an autonomous body, therefore, no sanction is required, if person is working on a particular post and performing his duties satisfactorily. Admittedly, UIT, Jodhpur is taking work of Tracer from petitioner since 1983, therefore, denial on the ground that petitioner's case has been referred to the State Government for sanction is not justified. Obviously, in such circumstances, when petitioner is working for more than 25 years on the post of Tracer in UIT, Jodhpur and prayed for grant of semi permanent and permanent status, then this Court cannot refuse him said benefit which is available to petitioner after two years and ten years of service in accordance of Rules of 1964. Although, the decision taken by the UIT, Jodhpur vide resolution dated 22/8/2003 is required to be communicated to the State Government but for want of post the said benefit cannot be denied to petitioner by the respondent UIT because respondent UIT is taking work from petitioner on the post Tracer for last more than 25 years. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. UIT, Jodhpur is directed to grant semi permanent status to petitioner after completion of two years of service so also permanent status after completion of ten years of service after considering - 5 - the fact that petitioner is working continuously since 1/10/1983 and resolution was passed by UIT, Jodhpur. The above exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondent UIT, Jodhpur is further directed to grant all consequential benefits after granting semi permanent and permanent status to the petitioner in accordance with Rules. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. pb