- (1.) ALL these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order since the controversy invovled in all of them is common, with regard to the age of retirement of work-charged employees.
(2.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of INdia, the Governor of Rajasthan made the rules for regulating recruitment and conditions of service of the work-charged employees of the Public Works Department (Building and Roads) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments which are knowns as Rajasthan PWD (B&r) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964. The said Rules were made applicable by notification dated 18. 1. 1989. The work-charged Rules were made applicable to the work-charged employees of the Forest Department excluding departmental opration circle. Under the Rules of 1964 a work- charged employee has been considered as an employee who is actually employed for or on the execution and/or supervision of works both original and maintenance, supervision of departmental labour machinery and works etc paid on daily or monthly basis. The workcharged employee has been categorised as semi permanent and permanent. Rule 8 provides the compulsory retirement. It is stated that except as otherwise provided in the Rules (i) the date of compulsory retirement of the employees of the categories specified in the Schedule appended to the Rules, shall be the date on which the employees attain the age of 58 years and (ii) the date of compulsory retirement of other employees shall be the date on which such employees attain the age of 55 years. The categories which have been specified in the schedule are 21 which are as under: - 1. Blacksmith, 2. Turner, 3.Jamadar, 4.Moulder, 5. Carpenter, 6. Welder, 7. Painter, 8. Helper other than of the lowest grade, 9. Tailor, 10. Fitter, 11. Upholster, 12. Driver of vehicles & Machinery including heavy earth moving machinery, 13. Electrician, 14. Wiremen, 15. Stores, Cutter or Dresser, 16. Mechanic, 17. Modeller, 18. Mason, 19. Plumber, 20. Caneman, 21. Dhobi. There are other rules regarding pay scales, rate of increments, casual leave, earn leave paid and weekly holidays, consolidated wages, disciplinary action and payment of wages etc. Vide order dated 28. 2. 1994 a complete ban was imposed on recruitment of workcharged employees and such employees were directed to be absorbed as regular employees in a phase manner. It was directed that those employees who have rendered 10 years of satisfactory service as on 31. 12. 1993 shall be converted into regular employees w. e. f. 1. 4. 94, and were brought under the perview of Rajasthan Service Rules. Thereafter, an order dated 20. 9. 95 was issued by the State Government in which it was directed that the work-charged employees whose services have been regularised will retire like government employees and the employees getting pay scale No. 1 and 2 shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years and other employees shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Rajasthan State Electric Workers Union PWD Jodhpur & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1), wherein it was held that permanent employees under the Rules ipsofacto became regular employees and were entitled for House Rent Allowance like other employees. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Association of Maharashtra Education Service Class II Officers and others vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2), where under the Bombay Civil Service Rules, the age of superannuation teachers as a class was 58 years. The Government accepted recommendations of Sen Committee and extended the age of Superannuation to 60 years for teachers of University and non-Govt. affiliated colleges only, while making an exception in case of teachers of Govt. Colleges who were left to be continued to be governed by original/relevant rules providing age of superannuation as 58 years. In view of instric material on record that other clauses of resolution treated all teachers on par and as forming one class, it was held that there is no justification for bifurcating similarly situated categories for the purpose of superannuation. It was not considered to be reasonable classification and clause 26 of the Resolution dated 27. 2. 89 was quashed being discriminative and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case there is no such recommendations of the committee. The provisions of RSR have been adopted w. e. f. 1. 4. 94. Therefore, this judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Om Prakash Meghwal vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (3), wherein it was considered that the workcharged employees who have completed two years or more they shall be eligible for semi permanent status if in the opinion of the competent authority their services are satisfactory. This judgment has no relevancy as the controversy involved in the present case is not for status of semi permanent. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Miss Raj Soni vs. Air Officer Incharge Administration & Anr. (4), wherein the Delhi Education Code/delhi Education Act 1973 as well as the Delhi Education Rules, 1973 provide the age of retirement for existing teachers who joined service before coming into force of the Act/rules as 60 years. The petitioner in that case was retired at the age of 58 years. It was in these circumstances that the Apex Court observed that the age of superannuation cannot be left to the whims of employer to retire different employees at different age. Uniform rule has to be followed for superannuation of the employees. In the present case there is no dispute that the Rules were not made applicable uniformally and there is no power for acting discriminatory, nor it has been so exercised. Reliance has been placed on the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. K. T. Shastri (5), wherein the Defence Science Service had three units. The same was reconstituted in 1979 and the employees allocated into three different services without calling for their options to opt for one or the other were categorised in the different services. In these circumstances, it was observed that the service conditions must run parallel and no discrimination can be made between them by unilateral action in regard to age of retirement. The three services so framed had different retirement age. In the present matter at the time of entering into service there was no different age of retirement provided for different categories of work- charged employees and all of them were considered as one class. By the order dated 28. 2. 1994 when the work-charged employees were directed to be made permanent w. e. f. 1. 4. 94 the benefit under the RSR has already been given to them.
(3.) RELIANCE has been placed on the decision in the case of Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Workmen (6), wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that - "the present day tendency is to fix the age of superannuation generally at 60 unless the Tribunal feels that the work of the operatives is particularly arduous or hazardous where workmen may lose efficiency earlier. " Earlier the standing orders of Forest Department itself were issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and these standing orders were held applicable from 8. 5. 73 as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Raj. vs. Mohan Singh Civil Appeal No. 13539/89 decided on 14. 8. 89. After adopting the work-charged Rules of 1964 vide order dated 18. 1. 1989 the petitioners are governed by be Rules of 1964. On behalf of the respondents it is argued that the pertinent to mention that these work-charged employees are employed for casual nature of work in different schemes which come into force from time to time. It appears that after completion of one scheme or during the period of the said scheme, another scheme is received and therefore the services of the employees are not terminated and they are continued. It is stated that the nature of work is not of permanent nature and that the nature of work and duties of the workcharged employees and that regular employees is also different. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Alwar Division PWD Karmchari Sangh vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (7), wherein the employees were said to have been taken in regular cadre of class IV and benefit of the retirement age of 60 years was given. In the present case the employees were not taken on regular cadre and the workcharged employees were given permanent status. The reliance has also been placed on the case of T. P. George & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (8), where the State of Kerala implemented the UGC scheme of 1986 for its teachers except the age of retirement which was continued at 55 years. It was observed that teachers cannot claim as a matter of right that they are entitled to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. It was further observed that the teacher of the Universities are governed in respect of their conditions of service and the age of retirement by separate statutes made by the Universities concerned. On the other hand the teachers in private colleges or affiliated colleges are governed in respect of their conditions of service by regulations or rules framed by the Government and in these circumstances the two classes of Universities teachers and teachers in private colleges cannot be regarded as similar for purposes of conditions of service as to bring the case under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I have considered over the matter. From a perusal of law which emerges by various decisions it has to be seen whether rule 8 of the Rules of 1964 can be said to be violative the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the work-charged employees were governed by the Rules of 1960 from 18. 1. 1989 to 31. 3. 1994 since from 1. 4. 1994 they have been given the status of permanent and they are covered by the provisions of RSR. Notification dated 28. 2. 1994 makes it clear that on conferment of the permanent status from 1. 4. 94, those employees would be governed by RSR and accordingly the age of their retirement became 60 years. Therefore, any person after 1. 4. 94, if absorbed as a regular government employee in term of order dated 28. 2. 94, after 1. 4. 94, would get the benefit of 60 years as provided under the RSR if he is being paid pay scale No. 1 or 2. Prior to 1. 4. 94 when the RSR was not adopted the work-charged employees were governed by the Rules of 1964 and it has to be seen whether rule 8 of the Rules of 1964 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has come on record that the class IV employees of the State and work-charged employees of the Forest Department are discharging different duties and the workcharged employees of the Forest Department constitutes a class by themselves and even if the pay scale may be the same, but the nature of duties is different. It may also be observed that most of the petitioners are beldars etc the efficiency decreases with the age for manual work as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Jeewanlal Ltd. (supra ). In these circumstances I do not consider that the provisions of rule 8 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It may be observed that if any retirement benefit is due to any of the petitioners and has not been paid till date, it would be paid within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order before the respondents. ;