- (1.) This is second round of litigation by the petitioners. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, out of five petitioners, three i.e. Shri Ramniwas, Shri Vasudev and Shri Bhairon Singh, have already been regularized, and therefore, the claim qua these three petitioners no more survives. The petitioners have instituted the instant writ proceedings praying for the following relief(s): "(A) Issue a writ of Certiorary, thereby quashing and setting the orders Ex.8 and Ex.9 and similarly such other orders, which are likely to be issued during the pendency of the Writ Petition, purporting to revert the petitioners as Beldars or any other such illegal and unlawful orders, causing irreparable loss and injury to them. (B) Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the Respondents to declare the petitioners as permanent Drivers in view of their discharging the duties and functions of Drivers for last more than 10-12 years. (C) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or Direction, directing the respondents to take from them the Work of Driving the vehicles (from the petitioners) looking to their vast and sufficient experience of driving for last more than 10-12 years and directing as such to immediately regularise their services in the pay scales of Drivers, as evolved by 1989 Revised Pay Scale Rules, and 1998 pay-Scale Rules, now in-existence. (D) Issue a writ of Mandamus or direction or order, directing the Respondents to pay them salary and wages in the Revised Pay Scale of Drivers from 1.9.98 and onwards. (E) Costs of the Writ Petition, in the facts and circumstances of this case, may also be quantified and awarded to the petitioners. (F) Grant any other relief, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as may be considered appropriate and proper by the Hon'ble High Court, in the interest of justice and fair play."
(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details, the indispensable material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. (a) The petitioners instituted earlier petitions being SBCWP No.326/1992 (Bhairon Singh Vs. State of Raj. & others), SBCWP No.393/1992 (Ram Niwas and Others Vs. State of Raj. & others) and SBCWP No.394/1992 (Om Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Others). The writ applications were disposed of by the Court on 3rd February, 1998, by a common order, holding thus: "In all these three petitions the grievance of the petitioners if that they had been appointed as Beldars long back. However, they had been assigned the work of Drivers and they are being paid the salary of the Beldars. Thus, the instant petitions have been filed for seeking relief that they may be ordered to be paid the salary in the minimum pay scale of regular Drivers. The claim of the petitioners has been accepted by the respondents in paragraph No.8 of the reply to the effect that from the long time they are being driving the vehicles. In view of the admission made by the respondents themselves in the reply, the petitioners become entitled for minimum pay scale of regular drivers and the respondents, being the model employer, are not supposed to exploit the helpnessness of the petitioners and under the mandate of the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, they are entitled for the minimum pay of the regular drivers. In view of this, the petitions stand allowed and the petitioners are held to be entitled to get the minimum pay scale of regular drivers from the date of filing of the writ petitions, i.e. from January, 1992. The respondents are further directed to consider their claims for regularization strictly in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs." (b) In view of the order aforesaid, the respondents passed the orders dated 28th July, 1998 (Ex.8) and 31st July, 1998(Ex.9), which are a subject matter of assailment in the instant writ application. The respondents while complying with the direction in releasing the minimum of the pay scale of the post of regular driver from the date of filing of the writ application i.e. from January, 1992, observed that services of the petitioners be utilized on the post of "Beldar". At the motion stage, on the institution of the present writ application, this Court passed the interim order on 17th August, 1998, directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to work as Drivers w.e.f. 1st August, 1998. Consequent there upon, the petitioners have been continuing to work as Drivers with the State-respondents. (c) It is pleaded case of the petitioners that the State-respondents while conferring status of 'semi permanent' under the Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1964), conferred stutus of 'semi permanent' and 'permanent' to the persons junior to the petitioners, ignoring their claim, without any reason or rhym. The relevant documents (Annexures-11, 12 and 13) have also been placed on record to substantiate the averments.
(3.) In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter affidavit pleading that in compliance of the order passed by the High Court on the earlier writ applications; minimum of the pay scale of the post of regular driver, for the period of the petitioners worked, was released. It is further pleaded that subsequently the petitioners have also been accorded the benefit of status of 'semi permanent' as well as 'permanent' after completion of 2 years, and 10 years of service, respectively, in accordance with the Rules of 1964. Further, the petitioners were accorded the benefit of conferment of status of 'semi permanent' and 'permanent', on completion of the required period under the Rules of 1964, even prior to institution of the writ proceedings, and therefore, the present petition merits rejection on that count alone. To reinforce his submissions the counsel for the State-respondents has relied upon the opinion in the case of Ramu Ram & Others. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors, 2002 2 WLC(Raj) 558 and Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.: DBCWP No.1003/1988.;