Anil Dev Singh, C.J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.6.1999, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to issue direction to respondents to grant salary of Lineman Gr. II to the appellant. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
(2.) The Rajasthan State Electricity Board appointed the appellant as Class-IV employee in the year 1969. It is claimed by the appellant that Board started taking work from him of Lineman Gr.II since 1979. According to the appellant, through he has bet; o working as Lineman Gr.II for more than a decade, he has not been paid the salary of Lineman Gr.II. Appellant being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on 30.6.1999 on the ground that the writ petition raised disputed question of facts. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find that there are number of documents on record which show that the appellant has been discharging the duties of Lineman Gr. II since long. On 17.2.1978, vide Annex.P/1 to the petition, which is order passed by the Superintending Engineer (JDC), the appellant along with one Bhawani Mal was selected as an apprentice to undergo training as Lineman for three years. On 7.6.1979, an office order was issued by the Executive Engineer (REC), Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jalore (Annexure-P/2), which reveals that the appellant was transferred from REC S/D Raniwara as Lineman (Trainee) to REC S/D Jaswant Pura, Headquarters Ramseen. Again by office order dated 13.1.1982 issued by Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jalore, the appellant along with others was deputed to Sub-Division, Bhinmal upto 31.3.1982 as Lineman Gr.II. On 9.10.1982, another order was issued by Assistant Engineer (Construction), Rajasthan State Electricity Board by virtue of which, the appellant along with others was directed to report to Assistant Engineer, Bhinmal. All these orders were issued while the training was in vogue. It is not disputed that the appellant remained under training as an apprentice from 17.2.1978 to 31.10.1981 and during this period, undisputably, he was working as Lineman Gr.II. Even after 31.10.1981 when the training of the appellant had come to an end, he was functioning as Lineman Gr.II. This is more than clear from the order dated 6.11.1982 (Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition) issued by Assistant Engineer (Construction), Bhinmal. The order evidences that the appellant, Ram Rakh, Lineman along with other nine employees was relieved from Bhinmal for being sent to Raniwara. By order of the Assistant Engineer, Bhinmal dated 8.11.1982 (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition), the appellant whose designation was mentioned as Lineman was relieved from Bhinrnal for taking up the work at Raniwara. There is yet another office order, which shows that the appellant was discharging the duties of Lineman. This order dated 18.11.1982 (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition) was issued by Assistant Engineer (Rural), Raniwara by virtue of which direction was issued to the appellant and another Lineman to maintain the electric supply and in case of difficulty, they should get in touch with Junior Engineer. Even on 22.1.1985, 21.8.1987 and 20.4.1989, orders were issued which are Annexures-P/1 0, P/11 and P/12 respectively to the memo of appeal, which clearly establish that the appellant was working as Lineman Gr.II. The respondent, therefore, is not correct in saying that the appellant was not discharging the duties of Lineman Gr.II. Though the copies of the office orders dated 22.1.1985, 21.8.1987 and 20.4.1989 were filed with the memo of appeal, still they could have been rebutted by the respondents as they had ample opportunity to do so but they failed to place even a single document on record in support of their stand. The truth of the matter is that the appellant was being made to work as Lineman Gr.II by the respondents. This being so, the respondents were duty bound to pay to the appellant the salary which was admissible to a Lineman Gr.II. Taking work from a person without making him payment amounts to 'begar'. It has not been shown by the respondents that from a particular date, the appellant ceased to work as Lineman Gr.II. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the appellant has been continuously working as Lineman From 17.2.1978.;