RATNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, while seeking the reliefs for regularisation and grant of regular pay scale, the petitioner submits that he is working on the post of Cook / Class IV Employee on daily wages in the hostel of Social Welfare Department at Chhoti Khatu since 01.07.2002; that he was earlier paid the wages at the rate of Rs.600/- per month until the month of December 2006 and is being paid a sum of Rs.1,898/- per month with effect from 01.01.2007. The petitioner has averred that he has been performing the job pertaining to a Class IV Employee in the hostel including cooking the meals and cleaning the building etc.; and despite more than five years of continuous and satisfactory service, he has neither been granted the semi permanent status nor the minimum of regular pay scale whereas many other employees similarly circumstanced have been regularised and granted all the benefits pertaining to the regular Class IV Employee. The petitioner has further averred that he served upon the authorities a notice through counsel stating his grievances and seeking the requisite relief but in vain.

(2.) ON the averments and assertions aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled to be regularised in the service and to be paid in the minimum pay scale of Class IV Employee. An order dated 28.03.2011 as passed in CWP No.2892/2007: Kamal Kumar Rao Vs. The Secretary, Social Justice & Empowerment Department & Ors., has been referred wherein this Court directed consideration of the candidature of the petitioner of that writ petition for regularisation as per the provisions contained in Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999.

(3.) IN view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daya Lal (supra), the decision in Kamal Kumar Rao (supra) is of no help to the petitioner. Noticeable further it is that the petitioner of the said writ petition had been in employment since 21.05.1992 and was continuing as such until the year 2006. The present petitioner, as noticed, had been working since the year 2002 and appears to have been engaged by the Mess Committee for the work of the cook. There appears neither any legal right nor any equity in favour of the petitioner for a relief against respondent-department of regularisation or regular pay scale. IN view of the above, the petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.