- (1.) HAVING regard to the submissions made, while allowing the applications seeking condonation, the short delay in filing each of these appeal is condoned. The appeals are taken on the regular side.
(2.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that the issue involved in the present appeals stand concluded by the decisions of this Court, including the one in Rajasthan Vs. Hem Singh & Ors, decided on 03.02.2012 wherein, a Division Bench of this Court has affirmed the writ issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in favour of the similarly placed incumbents. In fact, in the impugned order dated 04.05.2013 itself, the learned Single Judge has noticed that the parties are essentially ad idem on the fact that the similar issues have already been decided by this Court and hence, the petitioners (respondents herein) were granted the same relief, i.e., of semi permanent status as Store Munshi from the date of their initial appointment. In the case of Hem Singh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has, inter alia, observed and held as under:- "It is not in dispute that these respondents (writ petitioners) have been working rather discharging the ministerial functions of 'Store Munshi'. It is also not in dispute that when the State accepts this factual scenario in relation to the writ petitioners in their report dt 4.4.2010 (page 122/123) about their work, work pattern, the duties discharged and also the period during which they discharged as a fact their functions on a particular post, then we do not find any justification in reversing the order of the Writ Court when it issued the impugned mandamus against the State and in their favour for regularisation on the post of 'Store Munshi'. Learned counsel for the appellant then placed reliance on one-committee reports of 249 employees alike the respondents herein (writ petitioners), which was filed for the first time in this appeal. According to him since these 249 employees, who were like the writ petitioners, were also given the benefits but only from the date of the report and hence, these writ petitioners (respondents) should also be given the benefits from the same date and not from any earlier date. We are not impressed by this submission for more than one reason. First, this report was not filed before the Writ Court and nor there is any reference of this report in the return filed by the State in the writ petition. Second, this report does not mention the names of the respondents. Third the report is not in the nature of judicial verdict, which can be given any waitage or which has any binding force. Fourth, there is no basis to say as to why the benefit is given to employees from a later date when the employees have been doing the same work much prior to that date and lastly when the learned Single Judge (Writ Court) examined the case of the writ petitioners on judicial side has recorded the finding that they are entitled for benefits from the date of their initial appointment then we can not give precedence to some report of the State which was not even filed before the Writ Court and which has no judicial sanctity.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant then contended that giving monetary benefits to the writ petitioners retrospectively by the Writ Court is not proper and would be a heavy burden on the State. We are not impressed by this submission also for more than one The position aforesaid directly applies to the present cases too and the matter stands concluded so far this Court is concerned. These appeals, accordingly, stand dismissed following the decision in Hem Singh's case (supra) and in the same terms. No costs.;