YADAV, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Union having its Registration No. DRTU/bk/24/89 duly registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is looking after the welfare of its members.
(2.) THE petitioner-Union has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction from this Court to the effect that the workmen mentioned in Schedule 'a' to. the writ petition may be given ouasi-permanent and permanent status on the basis of length of their services in their respective Pay Scales with all consequential benefits on the ground, inter-alia, that the final seniority list of Daily Wage Workers mentioned in Schedule 'a' to the writ petition working under the Divisional Forest Officer, Hanumangarh has already been prepared indicating the length of their services. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has disclosed the Standing Orders for workmen engaged in Forest Department of the Government of Rajasthan, which has come into force. Clause 3 of Chapter III of the said Standing Orders provides the following classification of workman: - "all workmen appointed to the services shall be classified as under : - (a) Casual (b) Temporary (c) Quasi-permanent (d) Permanent (A) Casual Workmen :- Shall mean those who are employed for a period for exceeding three months for work, which is essentially of a casual nature. (B) Temporary Workmen : Shall mean those who are employed in connection with a temporary increase in work or works expected last for a period exceeding 6 months. THEir employment shall last for the period the work or the appointment lasts. No notice shall be needed for the termination of their appointment. (C) Quasi-permanent: Shall mean workmen declared as such by the appointing authority. A workman who has rendered continuous service for a period of not less than two years may be declared quasi-permanent by the appointing authority after recording a certificate regarding the workmen's suitability for the conferment of such status. (D) Permanent: Shall mean workmen declared as such by the appointing authority. A. quasi-permanent workmen may be declared permanent against the permanent posts sanctioned from time to time preference being given on the basis of length of quasi- permanent service on the posts involving similar nature of duties. " After service of notices, respondents No. l to 4 have filed return to the writ petition. In paragraph 5 of their reply, they have stated with regard to the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that out of 16 persons mentioned in Schedule 'a' to the writ petition, 15 persons except Shri Shiv Lal Meena were declared Semi - permanent w. e. f. 30. 3. 92. It is nowhere mentioned in paragraph 5 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that Shri Shiv Lal Meena was not found suitable for giving him quasi-permanent status along with other 15 workmen. As regards, the averments made in paragraph 6 of their writ petition, it is stated in paragraph 6 of their reply that the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition are not disputed. I have heard Mr. S. N. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner but no one appeared on behalf of respondents No. l to 4 irrespective of due service and after filing of return to the writ petition to oppose the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-Union. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in reply to paragraph 5 of the writ petition, respondents No. l to 4 have stated that out of 16 persons mentioned in Schedule 'a' to the writ petition, 15 persons except Shri Shiv Lal Meena were declared semi-permanent vide order dated 30. 3. 92. According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have not given any reason as to why the same benefit of declaration of Semi-permanent was not extended to Shri Shiv Lal Meena in the order dated 30. 3. 92. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, denial of the benefit of declaration to Shri Shiv Lal Meena shown in Schedule 'a' at S. No. 5 amounts to hostile discrimination withing the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-Union and also critically gone through the material available on record.
(3.) A close scrutiny of schedule 'a' to the writ petition reveals that the name of Shri Shiv Lal Meena finds. place at S. No. 5 having 4 year's services in the respondent's-department. The persons, who have three year's services in the department , they have been given quasi-permanent status in pursuance of the Standing Orders issued by the department but the same benefit has been denied to Shri Shiv Lal Meena, who was senior to the persons shown in Schedule 'a' to the writ petition from S. No. 6 to 16. In my considered opinion, Shri Shiv Lal Meena is similarly circumstanced with rest of the incumbents shown in Schedule 'a' and he is also entitled to be given Semi-permanent status in the department as have been given to others. I am constrained to hold that the incumbents in the respondents department, ' who were junior to the petitioner shown in Schedule 'a' to the writ petition from S. No. 6 to 16 had been given benefit of the Standing Orders but the same benefit had been denied to Shri Shiv Lal Meena without assigning any rhyme and reason, which amounts to hostile discrimination within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have arbitrarily and illegally refused to extend the benefit of quasi-permanent status to Shri Shiv Lal Meena, which is apparent on the face of record from perusal of paragraph 5 of the reply filed by the respondents themselves. Arbitrary, capricious and with closed mind, denial of benefit of quasi-permanent status by the respondents to Shri Shiv Lal Meena against the constitutional philosophy of equal treatment with all Government Servants in the service of State has caused not only financial loss to him but due to insensitiveness of the respondents towards the golden principle of equality he has suffered mental agony as well as mental humiliation. This court can not afford to allow the respondents to reduce the principle of equality and equal treatment with all servants in service of the State, who are similarly circumstanced within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to a mere formal equality and to a mere formal equal treatment. In my humble opinion, this would lead to allow the respondents to transgress the fundamental rights guaranteed to each citizen of this country under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. These Articles require that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory: It must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration, because that would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non- arbitrariness is projected by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law, therefore, the respondents in the instant case cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily in denying extending the benefit of quasi-permanent status to Shri Shiv Lal Meena, who is admittedly senior to other incumbents who are shown from S. No. 6 to 16. As a result of the afore-mentioned discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed with compensation of Rs. 2000/- to Shri Shiv Lal Meena shown at S. No. 5 in Schedule 'a' to the writ petition and he is also granted the status of quasi-permanent with retrospective effect from 30. 3. 92 with all consequential benefits including the back-wages and seniority. The respondents are further directed to take decision to give permanent status to the incumbents in pursuance of the existing Standing Order, issued by the Department for the workmen engaged on Workcharge Establishment in the Forest Department of the Government of Rajasthan at Hanumangarh Division. It is further directed that the aforesaid compensation of Rs. 2000/- shall be recovered from the official who had accorded the quasi-permanent status to all the employees shown in Schedule 'a' denying the same benefit to Shri Shiv Lal Meena without any rhyme and reason, which amounts to hostile discrimination within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. l Secretary to the Government, Department of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur is hereby directed to recover the compensation of Rs. 2000/- after fixing the responsibility of the officer, who was responsible in denying the benefit' of quasi- permanent status to Shri Shiv Lal Meena shown at S. No. 5 in Schedule 'a' to the writ petition, while granting the same benefit to other workmen engaged on work-charge Establishment in the Forest Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 30. 3. 92 at Hanumangarh Division, who were juniors to him. Respondent No. l will fix the responsibility within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and within two months thereafter, he will inform the Registry Of this Court that compliance of deposit of Rs. 2000/-compensation has been made by the officer found responsible by him and the same has been paid to Shri Shiv Lal Meena. A Certified copy of this judgment be also sent forthwith to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur to ensure its compliance. . ;