- (1.) A short question is involved in this case and it is as to whether if under the Rajasthan Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short the rules) a person is appointed on a post, for example on the post of Balder, the work of the post say of the post Store-munshi, a higher post, is being taken from him for a period for one or two years, whether he is entitled to the conferment of semi permanent permanent status under the rules on the post of Balder or Store-munshi.
(2.) SOME facts are not disputed and they are these : The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Helper, as work-charge employee in the month of October 1979 and under order dated 11th October 1982, the status of semi-permanent employee i. e. Helper was conferred on him w. e. f. 1st April 1982. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that since the date of his appointment he was working as Store-munshi, under the supervisor of work shop section but in the reply the respondents have come out with a case that he was only working as Store-attendant. It does in appear the petitioner was working in work-shop section under the Supervisor and the work of preparation of bill and maintenance of registers was being taken from him. It can also be said that the petitioner was maintaining stock ledger posting, personal ledger posting, furniture issue receipts for the Ministers, M. L. As. etc. and from time to lime recommendations were made that he should be appointed as Store munshi. But no decision was taken. The post of Store-munshi was abolished under order Annex. R-l dated 11th September 1989 and in place of the post of Store-munshi, a post in the cadre of L. D. C. was to be provided. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner was appointed as Helper, status of semi -permanent was conferred on him on that post as said earlier, but because infact the work of Store-munshi was being taken from him, the petitioner is entitled to semi-permanent status after expiry of two years from the date he was working on the post of Store-munshi and is further entitled to permanent status after completion of 10 years of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the case of Kamal Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (1), to which 1 was a party. It will appear from the aforesaid case that the dispute in that case was whether Kamal Kumar the petitioner in that case was entitled to conferment of semi-permanent status in accordance with the rules or not? It will further appear that the only contest which was raised on behalf of the respondents was that Kamal Kumar had not continuously worked as Store-munshi for two years and he has even no right to be conferment of semi-permanent status on that post, and is only entitled to be conferment of the semi-permanent status on the post of Balder. This court took into consideration that the position was not contested that Kamal Kumar had been in continuous service as Store-munshi. It was held that the Kamal Kumar was holding the post of Store-munshi and even under the circular of the State Government, he was entitled to be conferment on the status on the post which he was holding on the dates mentioned in the circular. After having gone through the judgment, it cannot be said to have been laid down in it that the mere fact that one is discharging the duties of higher post, will entitle a person for conferment of the status of semipermanent/permanent on that higher post. That case was decided on its own fact and as said earlier, no contest appears to have been raised so far as the working of Kamal Kumar on the post of Store-munshi for a period of more than two years was concerned. I am of the opinion that the question of conferment of semi- permanent/ permanent status on a particular post will only arise in case a person has been either directly appointed on that post or has been appointed by promotion. If a person has been appointed on lower post and is allowed to discharge the duties of higher post, such a person may be entitled to the minimum pay in the pay scale of higher post on which he is working on the principle of 'equal Pay for Equal work. ' In the instant case, it is not even the case of the petitioner that after his appointment as Helper, he was ever appointed by any competent authority on the post of Store-munshi and his case is that the work of Store-munshi was being taken from him in work-shop section. A look at the Schedule of Administrative & Financial Powers delegated to the officers of the Public Work Department and the Irrigation Department, with which we are presently concerned will show that u/s-V (Temporary Establishment) at item No. 68 "to appointment work Estt. without specific provision in the sanctioned estimates, the powers have been deligated to the Chief Engineer. Even in the rules in part II provision has been made for recruitment to work-charge posts and a committee has powers to recommend the appointments and it is not the case of the petitioner that the appointment to the post of Store-munshi was not made to the petitioner and as said earlier that he was appointed as Helper and the work of Store-munshi was being taken from him.
(3.) IN my opinion, the position of law is that if one is appointed on a post, he is entitled for conferment of semi-permanent or permanent status depending on the fact whether he has completed two years or 10 years of service, as the case may be. If the work of higher post is taken from him, he may be entitled for minimum salary in the pay scale of that post on the principle of 'equal Pay for Equal Work. ' Unless there are specific orders either promoting or appointing him on higher post, merely because he was working on higher post or the work of higher post was being taken from him he cannot be held entitled for semi-permanent or permanent status under the rules. Consequently, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. .;