TIBREWAL, J. - (1.) ALL these petitions are identical in nature wherein the petitioners are claiming the status of semi permanent work-charged employees on completion of continuous service for two years as per rule 3 (3) of the Rajasthan Work- Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short the Rules ).
(2.) AT the out-set, it may be stated that the present litigation could have been avoided in case the authorities concerned had taken a proper decision objectively keeping in view the various decisions of this Court rendered in similar matters wherein directions have been given to grant semi-permanent status to a work-charged employee on completion of two years service if his service record is satisfactory. It also appears that before approaching this court, representations were made by the petitioners drawing attention of the authorities towards the decisions of this Court and circulars issued by other departments in identical situation, but still the matter was not considered by the authorities which is really shocking and distressing as such attitude causes unnecessary and unwanted litigation. The State Government and its instrumentalities are the major litigants at least before the High Court. Experience shows that much of the cases come before this Court because the State functionaries either deliberately avoid to take decisions in time or the matters are decided by them in a most perfunctory and reckless manner without considering even the various decisions of this Court rendered on the subject. They should not forget that it leads heavy pressure of work-load in the High Court and Subordinate Courts and also causes loss of public money and valuable time and energy of public servants. Work-charged Rules are applicable to various departments of the State Government, as such, it is necessary that the departments should follow a uniform policy in declaring semi-permanent or permanent status work-charged employees. Lack of co-ordination and different orders by various departments also lead to unnecessary litigation which can be avoided. Another distressing fact is that a judgment given in a similar matter is not followed subsequently by the authorities and the employees are left to obtain similar orders from the Courts. These observations are being made by me on the basis of experience and knowledge gained while dealing with cases against the State Government and its instrumentalities. I feel that it is high time that State machinery should now change its ways of functioning, so as to be more rational, objective and scientific, instead of leaving everything to be decided by the Courts. Authorities concerned should themselves take proper and timely decisions. For making proper and uniform decisions they should also strengthen and update their legal cell. Be that as it may. A resume of the facts, would reveal that the petitioners have not been give the status of semi-permanent of work-charged employees on completion of two years. Some of them have been given semi permanent status mu- uch after two years w. e. f. 1. 1. 95 and their grievance is that they are entitled to get the relief of semi-permanent status on completion of two years like other employees. It may be stated here that there is no dispute before me that all the petitioners are work-charged employees. Rule 3 lays down categorization of such employees as (i) permanent status (ii) semi-permanent status and (iii) casual. Sub- rules (2), (3) and 4 are relevant and they read as under : (2) Employees, who have been in service for ten years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work- charged employees provided their record of service in the opinion on the competent authority is satisfactory. (3) Employees in continuous service for two years or more except those covered by sub rule (1) shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent work-charged employees or of semi-permanent regular technical staff, provided their record of service, in opinion of the Competent Authority, is satisfactory. (4) No employees shall acquire the status specified in sub- rule (2) and (3) without the prior sanction of the competent authority, as may be notified by the Head of the Department from time to time. A clarification has been issued on 19. 8. 1980 by the D. O. P of the State Govern- ment which is reproduced as under : "it has been observed that in the mater of declaring of semi-permanent and permanent status of work charged employee under rule 3 of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B & R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work char- ged Employees Service Rules, 1964, a uniform policy is not being adopted by the departments where work-charged employees are engaged. The casual work-charged employees are declared as semi permanent and allowed regular pay scale with other benefits like leave, medical facilities, travelling and daily allowance etc. as soon as they complete 2 years under the plea that it is obligatory to declare them semi-permanent on completion of 2 years according to rule 3 of the above said rules. It is clarified that Rule 3 (3) only mentions that an employee becomes entitled to be declared as semi-permanent on completion of two years service provided his service record is satisfactory and sanctioned post is available besides other conditions, such as, age at the time of recruitment and medical fitness etc. are fulfilled. It is, therefore, enjoined upon all the concerned departments that the casual workers should not be declared semi-permanent on completion of 2 years service only and allowed pay scales unless other conditions mentioned above are also fulfilled. (Vide DOP Notification No. F5 (11) DOP (A-11/74 dated 19. 8. 1980 ). "
(3.) THE above rules and clarification have been considered, and interpreted by this Court from time and again it has been consistently held that on completion of two years satisfactory service, a casual employee acquires right to be declared semi permanent and employer is under obligation to pass appropriate order for conferring this status as work charged employee if their service record is satisfactory in the opinion of the competent authority. In Om Prakash Meghwal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and others (1), this Court has observed thus: "sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 lays down certain eligibility criterion i. e. a person who has put in two years' continuous service and whose work is satisfactory, then he can be declared a semi permanent provided his record is satisfactory. A clarification has been issued under this rule which further clarifies that the incumbent who has completed two years' service and whose record is satisfactory then he can only be declared semi permanent if sanctioned post is available and he satisfies other conditions such as age at the time of recruitment, medical fitness, etc. The Rule 3 (3) lays down the eligibility criteria for declaring the status of semi-permanence but the clarification which has been issued by the State Government under this Rule cannot over-ride the statutory rules framed by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Sub Rule 3 of Rule 3 only says that the incumbent who has put in two years of continuous service is eligible for the status of semi- permanence but this has not been circumscribed by any other rider of sanctioned post. The clarification which has been much emphasized by the learned Addl. Government Advocate cannot supersede the statutory rules. This is only an administrative instruction and such administrative institution cannot circumscribe the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309. Likewise, sub- rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 does not talk about the financial sanction in respect of the posts. The sub-rule (4) only says that a prior sanction has to be taken of the competent authority to be notified by the Head of the Department from time to time, therefore, it is held that sub-rule (4) of rule 3 also does not talk about the so-called financial sanction which had been much emphasized before me. The sub-rule (4) only requires that the declaration of semi-permanent status is to be given by a competent authority. It is not necessary that in every case the competent authority should be the Head of the Department. This power can be delegated by the Head of Department to any person whom he thinks proper for the exercise of such power. Therefore, sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is not circumscribed by financial sanction. This Court, when the matter first came before it for consideration in the case of Rashtriya Nal Mazdoor Sangh vs. State of Rajasthan, had examined this aspect though in a different context that is equal pay for equal work and after reviewing the cases on the subject available at that time observed - "rule 3 (3) provides that if these casual/daily wages work-charged employees have completed two years service or more they shall be eligible if in the opinion of the competent authority their services are satisfactory. This rider has been put for acquiring semi-permanent status. Thus, a casual or daily wages worker cannot as a matter of right acquire the status of a semi- permanent employee. The eligibility is that he should have worked as casual or daily wages for a period two years. Thereafter, his satisfactory work has to be judged by the competent authority then and then only he can be given a status of semi permanent. " The final relief was given as under: "therefore, in this view of the matter 1 hold that the incumbents who have completed 10 years service or more till this date may be declared permanent if their record is satisfactory and those incumbents who have completed two years service or more and their record is satisfactory, may also be given the semi- permanent status and other incumbents, who have completed less than two years of service may be progressively regularised. " In Vinod Kumar v. State (2), the above principle is reiterated by a learned Single Judge observing as under : "having gone through the rival submissions made in this regard, it appears from the scheme of the Rules that the categorisation of permanent and semi permanent or permanent status and semi-permanent status and the casual workers has been made in the scheme of the Rules and it had been provided in the scheme of the Rules itself that those who have continuous service for two years or more and whose record of service in the opinion of the competent authority is satisfactory are to be conferred the semi- permanent status, the employees who have been in service for 1 0 years or more are eligible for the status of permanent workcharged employees provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority is satisfactory. Thus it is very clear in the scheme of the Rules itself that in the workcharge services all employees enter as a casual workers and once an employee completes two years period he is eligible for the status of semi-permanent and on completion of 10 years service he is eligible for permanent status as workcharge employee. The only embargo provided under sub-rule 2 and 3 is that the record of service in the opinion of the competent authority must be satisfactory. Therefore, all those persons appointed as workcharged employees on completion of two years are entitled for semi-permanent status sub- ject to the only condition that their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority is satisfactory and similarly all those employees who have completed 10 years of service are entitled for the permanent status in case their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority is satisfactory. The conferment of semi perma- nent and/or permanent status as a workcharge employee has, therefore, no concern whatsoever with the number of sanctioned posts because the posts are already sanctioned against which the persons are continuing. It is absolutely erroneous and wholly irrelevant consideration to say that merely because a person is working as a casual worker, in case semi- permanent status/permanent status is to be conferred upon them there must be further sanction of that very post against which he is to be continued with semi-permanent/permanent status. " ;