- (1.) Both the above writ petitions involve common controversy of law, therefore, these writ petitions are decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12074/2010, Udai Pal vs. State of Rajasthan & Others are taken into consideration. In the writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer: (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to grant semi-permanent status to the petitioner on the post of Store Munshi on completion of two years satisfactory service i.e. 1.5.1989 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and accordingly order granting petitioner semi permanent status be quashed and set-aside or modified by substituting Helper by Store Munshi with all consequential benefit flowing there from in the alternative, from the date the same has been given to the persons juniors to the petitioner with all consequential benefits; (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to grant permanent status to the petitioner on the post of Store Munshi on completion of ten years satisfactory service with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary; (iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the decision of the State Government denying the arrears of salary on grant of semi permanent status as Store Munshi be ordered to be placed on record and be declared illegal and be quashed; (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) Main contention of the petitioner is that although he was appointed on the post of Beldar and was granted semi-permanent status on the said post vide Annex. 1 dated 12.10.1995 but he is entitled to be absorbed on the post of Store Munshi. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed that screening committee was constituted for the purpose of granting semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi, in which, name of the petitioner is also appearing. Case of the petitioner was considered by the screening committee constituted by the Department vide Annex. 4 dated 23.6.2007 and, in the proceedings, petitioner's case was also appearing at S. No. 202. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for absorption on the post of Store Munshi, so also, for granting semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the following judgments: (1) Judgment dated 19.4.1988 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1319/1987, Kamal Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Others. (2) Judgment dated 9.8.2004 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 798/1993, Kewal Krishan vs. State of Rajasthan & Others. (3) Judgment dated 21.9.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2833/2005, Rajendra Kumar & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others. (4) Judgment dated 17.11.2006 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1126/2005, Rameshwar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Others. (5) HEM CHAND BAID vs PREM WATI PAREKH, 1980 AIR(Del) 1 (6) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NEW DELHI vs ASHOK KUMAR BEHAL, 2002 AIR(SC) 2940 (7) SUNDARJAS KANYALAL BHATHIJA vs COLLECTOR, THANE, MAHARASHTRA, 1990 AIR(SC) 261;