VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 19. 4. 1999 (Annexure- 4) and further prayed for directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular Time Keeper in the pay scale of Rs. 950- 1680/- and revise his pay-scale and to pay arrears.
(2.) ACCORDING to the facts of the case, the petitioner's father late Nand Lal Khatri was working on the post of Carpenter in the Office of Public Works Department, Bikaner. He died while in service. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for providing appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975. When the application of the petitioner was not considered for providing appointment on compassionate ground, then the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4296/1989 which was decided vide order dated 13. 12. 1989 and it was specifically ordered that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for employment on the post of Lower Division Clerk within a period of two months. Further, it was observed in the order dated 13. 12. 1989 that the petitioner may be granted employment commensurate with his qualification and status. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, no appointment was provided to the petitioner. Therefore, a contempt petition being SB Civil Contempt Petition No. 69/90 was filed by the petitioner. In reply to the contempt petition, it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioner has been provided appointment on the post of L. D. C. But in fact he was not provided appointment on the post of L. D. C. but in fact he was appointed as Time Keeper, which carries same pay-scale of L. D. C. , so also for time keeper, there is provision for same promotional avenues as available to the post of L. D. C. The case of the petitioner is that he was provided appointment in pursuance of the directions of this Court on the post of Time Keeper and he was granted regular pay scale. Thereafter, when the petitioner made a claim for granting fixation of pay in the revised pay scale rules then the case of the petitioner was not considered properly and an illegal order dated 19. 4. 1999 has been passed by Chief Engineer (P & M) Public Works Department, Government of Raj. , Jaipur in which it is directed that the petitioner was wrongly provided appointment on the post of Time Keeper, in fact, he was to be given appointment on the post of work-charged employee and he was entitled for semi-permanent status after completion of two years of service. Therefore, vide impugned order, the benefits extended to the petitioner are taken back and recovery was ordered from his salary and re-fixation in the cadre of workcharged employee was ordered to be made. The petitioner while challenging the impugned order dated 19. 4. 1999 passed by respondent No. 2 has prayed that the conduct of the respondents while issuing order impugned dated 19. 4. 1999 is not only illegal but it is also contempt of the order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition because earlier the petitioner was provided appointment in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in the contempt petition though it was informed to the Court that the petitioner has been provided appointment on the post of Time Keeper which carries the same benefits and promotional avenues of the post of L. D. C. , therefore, the petitioner accepted the said appointment on the ground that the post of Time Keeper carries same payscale as provided for L. D. C. and same promotional avenues. However, without assigning any reasons and in contravention of the order passed by this Court the said benefits extended to the petitioner is rescinded, which is totally unconstitutional. Therefore, it is prayed that the order impugned may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to make fixation of pay of the petitioner in the revised pay scale rule, which is provided to the Govt. employees from time to time while treating the petitioner as regular Time Keeper under the Rules of 1975. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents are protecting their action by reiterating that the petitioner was to be appointment under the provisions of work-charged Rules, therefore, the recovery has rightly been made and the order for treating the petitioner work-charged employee was rightly passed by the respondents.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties, so also perused the entire record of the case. It is very strange that time and again the respondents are not only disobeying the orders of this Court but they have courage to rescind the benefits extended to the petitioner in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court. This action of the respondents is highly objectionable and requires to be deprecated. Obviously, in this case, the petitioner was provided appointment in pursuance of the directions of this Court under the Rules of 1975 and the petitioner was substantively provided appointment on the post of Time Keeper but only on the basis of illegal reporting of the office and without application of mind, the order impugned has been passed. In my opinion, such order is required to be defined as unconstitutional order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that such order should not be allowed to stand before eye of law and deserves to be quashed. ;