MADAN, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition, briefly stated are that the petitioner, who is present serving as a Pump Driver with the respondent No. 3, was initially appointed on work-charge basis with effect from 1. 07. 1975. THEreafter, he was absorbed as Class-IV employee vide order dated 29. 07. 1988 on consolidated salary of Rs. 240/- per month. Consequently, vacancy of Pump Driver came into existence in the year 1983 on account of voluntary retirement of Shri Faizu Khan, which was not filled-up by the respondents, the petitioner was asked to work as a Pump Driver as a stop-gap-arrangement and it is contended that the petitioner has been working on the said post of Pump Driver till date. This fact is fully borne out from a perusal of the order dated 22. 06. 1987, issued by the Chief Warden, Wild Life, i. e. respondent No. 2. A perusal of the said order clearly reveals that the petitioner had acquired 3 years requisite practical experience having worked as Pump Driver with the said Department as on the said date. It is further stated in the certificate that the work of the petitioner was found quite satisfactory and that he had further achieved sufficient experience as a Pump Driver. It was keeping in view of these facts, that recommendations were made for confirmation and regularisation of the services of the petitioner on the post of Pump Driver by respondent No. 2. A perusal of the aforesaid order further reveals that there was categorical assurance conveyed to the petitioner that he will be given promotion on the post of Pump Driver by the respondents.
(2.) THEREAFTER the petitioner made several representations to the respondents for regularisation of his services as a Pump Driver and that he should be further given the salary of the Pump Driver, on which post the petitioner had been performing his duties continuously ever since his appointment as a regularly appointed Pump Driver Since the year 1983. Notwithstanding the representations and recommendations made in favour of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 22. 06. 1987, as referred to above, neither the services of the petitioner have yet been regularised nor the petitioner had been paid wages admissible to the Pump Driver since 1983. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner had been paid wages for the post of Class-IV employee and that he was left with no option but to serve a notice for demand of justice to the respondents dated 21sl January, 1989 (Annex. 3) but the respondents did not care to send any reply, therefore, the petitioner has moved this writ petition before this Court. In reply to the writ petition filed by the respondent, it has been contended in para 4 that the petitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualification as an ITI Fitter and hence he was not qualified to be appointed as a Pump Driver in terms of the order dated 10. 7. 85 (Annex-R-1) and that since the petitioner was working as a Class-IV employee he was not fit to be appointed as a Pump Driver and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any salary of Pump Driver on which post he was never appointed. This contention of the respondents has been specifically controverted by the petitioner in the rejoinder wherein the petitioner has contended that since he had obtained sufficient working experience as a Pump Driver, he is entitled to be regularised and confirmed on the said post and he should have been fixed in the regular pay-scale of Pump Driver, on which post he has been working since 1983. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the refusal of the respondents to fix the petitioner in the regular pay-scale of Pump Driver is highly arbitrary, unreasonable by virtue of the continuity of service of the petitioner as a Pump Driver with effect from the year 1983, a positive assurance of continuity in service was conveyed to the petitioner and the services of the petitioner should have been regularised and he should have been confirmed on the post of Pump Driver on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation report in (1), wherein the Apex Court has held as under : - "practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as a daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. " Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents, therefore, the reply filed by them has been taken into consideration.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the reply filed by the respondents as well as the relevant documents on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to succeed. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/-, and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as a regular employee by regularising his services on the post of Pump Driver on which he is working since 1983 and also to fix the petitioner in regular pay-scale of Pump Driver and pay him the arrears of salary due to the petitioner on the said post with effect from 24. 3. 1989, i. e. the date of the filing of the writ petition. The respondents shall take necessary steps to pass the necessary orders regularising the services of the petitioner on the post of Pump Driver, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order. .;