P.P.NAOLEKAR, J. - (1.) THIS is a joint writ petition filed by 13 petitioners seeking the relief that the respondents may be directed to grant regular grade -increments to them with effect from the date of their initial appointment in service alongwith other admissible allowances and not from the date from which they have been regularised in service as has been done by the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONERS Rakesh Bhandari, Dinesh Bafna, Deepak Mohnot, Surendra Raj Mohnot and Manmohan Lalas were given appointment by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court purely on urgent/ad hoc/temporary basis by orders dated 21.01.86, 20.02.86 and 26.06.86 for a period of six months in the first instance. Later on, they were transferred on their request to the office of the Government Advocate, however, they remained ad hoc employees in the office of the Government Advocate till they were regularised. Petitioner K.K. Vyas was appointed by the Special Judge, Sati Niwaran Court, Jaipur by order dated 20.01.87 upto 30.12.87. Later on, he was transferred to the Government Advocate's office and remained ad hoc employee till regularisation. Petitioner Suresh Kumar Khatri was appointed in the office of the Special Public Prosecutor, Designated Special Court, Ajmer vide order dated 25.10.86 upto 28.02.87 and, was transferred to the Government Advocate's office on his request. Petitioner Naresh Kumar was appointed by the Advocate General, Rajasthan by order dated 01.02.86 upto 28.02.86 and was posted in the office of the Government Advocate at Jodhpur where he continued to be ad hoc employee till his regularisation. Petitioners Satya Narain Sharma and Jaswant Singh were appointed as Class IV employees by order dated 21.01.85 for a period upto 28.02.85 on ad hoc basis. Satya Narain Sharma was appointed as Record Keeper -cum -Weeder and Jaswant Singh was appointed as Record Keeper. Petitioner Bhoopat Singh was appointed as Class IV employee by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur by his order dated 16.01.84 purely on ad hoc basis for a period of three months and was transferred to the Government Advocate's office on his request where he joined as Class IV employee on ad hoc basis. Petitioner Chandra Shekhar was appointed as Class IV employee by order dated 20.04.85 by the Addl. Advocate General on ad hoc basis for a period of three months. Petitioner Ashok Acharya was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on the office of Assembly Secretariat and he also came to be transferred to the Government Advocate's office on his request on 27.07.86 and continued to remain ad hoc employee till regularisation. Petitioner Ashok Mathur was appointed by the Special Judge, Sati Niwaran Court, Jaipur on 28.01.88 on ad hoc basis and was transferred on his request to the Government Advocate's office where he continued as ad hoc employee till his regularisation. It is in this manner that these petitioners were appointed as ad hoc employees by various orders issued by different authorities and most of them came to be transferred on their request to the Government Advocate's office where all of them remained ad hoc till regularisation in service. The State Government vide notification dated 12.10.92 amended Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short to be called The Rules of 1957' hereinafter) and inserted Sub -rule (10) and further added proviso (XXVI) to Rule 27 thereof. An amended, Sub -rule (10) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 1957 runs as under: (10) Notwithstanding anything contained, in Rule 7, all persons appointed as LCDs on ad hoc basis or on daily wages basis during the period from 01.01.85 to 31.03.90 and are still working as such on the date this amendment comes into force shall be appointed on regular basis on availability of vacancy subject to the condition that they pass a performance test conducted by the Head of the Department concerned within a period of three years in acordance with the syllabus prescribed in Part IV of Schedule I. Such persons shall be allowed three chances to pass the said test to be availed within a period of three years. Provided that if a person fails to pass the said test in three chances to be availed within a period of three years, he shall be liable to be removed from services. Proviso (XXVI) to Rule 27 of the Rules of 1957 runs as under: (XXVI) that notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in substantive part of Rule 27, the persons appointed as LDCs under Sub -rule (10) of Rule 25 shall rank junior to the persons appointed regularly as a result of passing the competitive Examination conducted by the Commission and their interse -seniority shall be determined on the basis of length of continuous service on ad hoc basis and/or daily wages basis.
(3.) IN pursuance of the amendment coming into force the respondents conducted a written -test where at all the petitioners appeared and were declared successful. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.04.93 issued by the Joint Legal Remembrancer and Director, Litigation, services of all these petitioners were regularised on the posts of L.D.C. with effect from the date mentioned in column 4 of the order.;