MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court by the above named petitioner in the matter of interpretation of the relevant Rules of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B & R), including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works & Ayurvedic Departments Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules ). The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Beldar in the year 1966 but has been discharging his duties as helper in installation and repair works of sanitary fittings with the respondents. Since there was no helper with the department during the relevant period the services of the petitioner were taken by the department for discharging the duties of the helper which the petitioner has been discharging for the last 10 years. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner has submitted an application on 25. 6. 79 to the concerned authorities for appointing the petitioner as helper (vide Annex. 1), since the petitioner had been discharging the duties of the helper ever since his appointment as Sanitary Fitter. A perusal of the said application reveals that there is endorsement on the same both by the Assistant Engineer as well as Junior Engineer to the effect that the petitioner who was appointed as Beldar has been working as Sanitary Fitter for the past many years and his work is found to be satisfactory.
(2.) IT has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the service record of the petitioner, lying with the respondents, will prove that the petitioner has been all through out doing the work as Helper in sanitary fitting and repair work and he has been successfully discharging his duties from time to time. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 wherein it has been specifically provided that the employee who is in continuous service for two years or more, shall be eligible for the status of semipermanent work-charged employee and as per Sub-rule 2 of the said Rule, the employee who is in continuous service for a period of 10 (years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employee. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been working as a Helper/sanitary Fitter with the respondents for the past more than 10 years, as such he is entitled to be declared as permanent Helper and is also entitled to be paid salary for the same on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined under Article 39 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kamal Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1), decided on 09. 4. 88. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court that there is nothing in the Rules of 1964 that the concerned employee is entitled only to the conferment of the status of semi permanent and all that is required is that the employee must have rendered continuous service for two years or more. Since it is an admitted position in the said case which was not disputed by the respondents and that the petitioner had discharged his duties for the continuous period of more than 2 years as the Store Munshi all though he was appointed as a Beldar, it was held by this Court that since the petitioner had been continuously in service for more than 2 years, he was entitled to be conferred the status of semi-permanent employee in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964. With the above observations the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was held entitled for all consequential benefits. Likewise in Lalit Pawan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), decided on 12. 3. 91, this Court had taken the similar view in favour of an employee as referred to above. After having placed reliance on the D. B. judgment of this Court in case of Kamal Kumar (supra),it was held by this Court that this Court has considered the scope of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1964 and that the person who is discharging his duties of Store Munshi is entitled to be conferred the status of semi-permanent employee under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1964. The writ petition was allowed by this Court with consequential benefits. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above contentions- and the legal position as envisaged under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1964, as referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to get the payment of salary due as Helper of the relevant period during which he has discharged the duties of Helper and also the status of semi- permanent helper should be accorded to him on the post of Helper as has been done in other similar cases by the respondents, as referred to above, since the petitioner is also doing the same work and discharging the similar duties as have been discharged by the other helpers.
(3.) IN support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner cited example of similarly placed employees who were also promoted to the post of Jamadars and Helpers but even on the ground of parity the petitioner has been discriminated in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of INdia. The petitioner has consequently prayed that the non-petitioners be directed to appoint the petitioner as Helper from the date of his appointment i. e. with effect from 1966 or from the date he had completed two years service i. e. with effect from the year 1968. He has further prayed that he may be given the pay and wages for the post of Helper with effect from the due date as has been paid to the other similarly situated helpers. In reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents the above contentions of the petitioner have been controverted by the learned Dy. G. A. , on the ground that although admittedly the petitioner was doing the work of Helper ever since his appointment but it was entirely voluntary and that his services were availed of by the respondents in special circumstances from time to time. It has also not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner had applied to the department by an application dated 25. 6. 79 for being promoted as Helper, although he could not be appointed as such. In this context, it will be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Dharwad Distt. PWD L. D. W. Association vs. State of Karnataka (3), wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the matter concerning the daily-rated and monthly rated employees in various Government establishments of the Karnataka State had given appropriate directions to the respondents to absorb the casual or daily-rated employees who had become eligible for absorption on the basis of completing ten years of service and their services were directed to be regularised by the Apex Court, on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work. ' ;