Decided on November 07,2019

Latoor Lal Meghwal Appellant


SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner by this writ petition has assailed the order dated 13.7.2001 whereby the Additional Regional Development Commissioner C.A.D. Chambal, Kota directed the petitioner to be relieved of his duties treating him as a daily wager and by retrenching him in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947'). The order dated 13.7.2001 was passed mentioning that there was no post available in the circle for a daily wage employee.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on muster roll basis on the daily wage labourer w.e.f. 1.11.1984 and his services were dispensed with wrongfully by the Department on 26.8.1985. Thereafter, he raised a dispute before the Labour Court and an award was passed in his favour on 29.5.1998 holding that the removal as unjustified and illegal with directions to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50 % back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1964') were applicable to the respondent and in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1964, the petitioner who was at muster roll was treated to be as work-charge employee. He was therefore not to be treated as a daily waged employee and the order of proposed retrenchment based on the reason that there is no post of daily wage employee was bad in law. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the reply which has been filed by respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was removed on account of coming into force of the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1999') whereunder Section 9 it was provided to remove the existing daily wage employees. Section 9 of the Act of 1999 has already been declared ultravires by this court in the case of Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Karmachari Sangh Versus State of Rajasthan and Others (SBCWP No.1376/1985) decided on 9.10.1991. In view thereof, the action of the respondents was illegal and the order of termination deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the order passed by the Labour Court the petitioner was required to be treated as on work-charge basis from 1.11.1984 and in the terms of the Rules of 1964 the petitioner was required to be granted status of semi-permanency on completion of two years of service and permanency on completion of 10 years of service. Thus he was to be treated as a permanent work-charge employee w.e.f. 1.11.1994.
(3.) Learned counsel further points out that the State Government has taken a policy decision to take over all the work-charge employees working in the various department governed under the Rules of 1964 vide its order dated 4.3.1993. Thus, all the work-charge employees of C.A.D. were also taken over as in regular establishment and treated as class-IV employees/ LDCs. Another writ petition preferred by a work-charge employees of the C.A.D. claiming such relief had been declared infructuous by this court after the relief was granted by the State Government. The case of the petitioner cannot be distinguished from the other similarly situated work-charge employees who have been granted relief and were placed in the regular establishment. The petitioner was therefore entitled to get all the benefits as an employee of the regular establishment. Learned counsel also points out that the petitioner has attained superannuation on 28.2.2019 and was thus required to be granted the benefits as available under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1951') and Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1996') treating him on the regular establishment from the year 1984 itself.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.