CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuing directions to the respondents to grant semi-permanent status and regular pay scale to them on the post of Beldar from the dates of their initial appointment and in the alternative to grant them semi-permanent status after completing two years service from their initial appointment.
(2.) AS per the factual-averments made in this petition, the petitioners were appointed as Beldars in 1988 and onwards and their services are governed by the Rajasthan (Public Works Department (B&R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) Work-charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules, 1964). During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had granted the semi- permanent status and all the reliefs which are available to the semi-permanent employees as is evident from the orders dated 24.8.95 (Annexure R. 1) and 16.9.95 (Annexure R. 2) to the reply. The grievance of the petitioners is that under the provisions of the said Rules, they are entitled for the semi-permanent status from the date they completed two years' continuous service from the date of their initial appointment. Heard Mr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.L. Jasmatia, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents with Smt. Raghuraj Kanwar, learned Assistant Government Advocate. Mr. Manish Singhvi has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), wherein, after interpreting the provisions of rule 3 of the said Rules, this Court held that in the work-charge services, all employees enter as a casual worker and once an employee completes two years period, he is eligible for the status of semi-permanent and on completion of ten years service he is eligible for permanent status as work-charge employee, however, it will be subject to the only condition that his record of service should be to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. However, it has no concern whatsoever with the number of sanctioned posts because the posts are already sanctioned, against which the persons are continuing. Similarly, in Om Prakash Meghwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), the Court took the same view and rejec- ted this submission of the respondent-State that prior sanction is necessary or mandatory requirement as per Sub-rule (4) of rule 3 of the said Rules. Further, reliance has been placed by Mr. Singhvi on the judgment of this Court in Rana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (3). In the said case, the Court placed reliance upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Meghwal (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra) and Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Vibhag Sangh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (4) and rejected the contention of the State that to grant semi-permanent status, the existence of a sanctioned post is mandatory and the Court observed that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of a declaration to the effect that he has acquired the right to be treated as semi-permanent and directed as under - "The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Respondents are directed to declare the petitioner as semi-permanent Helper with effect from the date of completion of two years' service counted from the date of appointment. Petitioner shall be given all the consequential benefits with effect from the date of declaration of semi-permanancy. Arrears payable to the petitioner in pursuance of this order shall be paid to him within six months, failing which the petitioner shall be paid interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order." Mr. Singhvi has submitted that the present petitioners are, also, entitled for the same declaration which had been made by this Court in Rana Ram (supra). With due respects to the Hon'ble Judge, I am of the considered opinion that passing such orders is beyond the competence of this Court. The Court cannot take upon itself the functions of the statutory authorities. Even if the petitioners are entitled to the grant of semi-permanent status after completing two years continuous service from their initial appointment, such an order cannot be passed as grant of semi- permanent status is subject to the rider that their services had to be satisfactory. Therefore, the concerned Authority has to consider the service record of the employees and find-out whether the service record was to the satisfaction of the employers. A Division Bench of this Court considered this aspect of the case in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rajendra Kumar Verma (5) and after placing reliance on the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e. G. Veerappa Pillai vs. Raman and Raman Ltd. (6), Narain Das & Ors. vs. P. Purshottam Rao & Ors. (7), Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchandran Ambekar & Anr. (8), and State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali (9) and came to the conclusion that issuing such a direction does not fall within the scope of mandamus. The Court can merely direct the concerned Authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the Rules. Thus, no such direction can be issued.
(3.) MR. Jasmatia, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has submitted that the cases referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners have not correctly been decided for the reasons that the interpretation given to the relevant provisions have rendered part of the Rules nugatory. The relevant provisions involved therein are contained in rule 2(a) which defines the "work-charge employees" as "any person actually employed for or on the execution and/or supervision of works both original and maintenance, supervision of departmental labour, stores, machinery and works, etc. paid on daily or monthly basis". Rule 3 lays down the categorisation which reads as under :- "(1) Work charged employees (including the regular technical staff of Water Works Department) for the purpose of these rules shall be divided into the following three categories : (i) Permanent Status, (ii) Semi-permanent status, and (iii) Casual: Provided, however, that nothing in these rules shall entitle any work-charged employee, categorised permanent or semi-permanent to claim the status of benefits of permanancy or semi- permanancy to which a regular Government employee is entitled under the Rajasthan Service Rules. (2) Employees, who have been in service for ten years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employees pro- vided their record of service in the opinion of 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 the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. (4) No employee shall acquire the status specified in sub- rules (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. Clarification:- It has been observed that in the matter of declaring of semi-permanent or permanent status of work-charged employees under rule 3 of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B&R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work Charged 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 likes leave, medical facilities, travelling and daily allowances 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 two years service only and allowed pay scales unless other conditions mentioned above are also fulfilled. (Vide D.O.P. Notification No. F. 5(11) DOP (A-II/74) dated 19.8.1980). Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 provides that an employee in continuous service for two years or more shall be eligible for the status of semi-permanent and sub-rule (4) further provides that the condition precedent for grant of such semi-permanent status is to have prior sanction of the competent authority as may be notified by the Head of the Department. If the interpretation given by this Court in the above earlier referred cases is examined carefully, it appears that attention of the Court was not drawn to words "or more" alongwith two years in Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 and interpretation given in the said cases has rendered the Sub-rule (4) as nugatory. This Court has categorically held that existence of sanctioned post may not be necessary. It is not in dispute that grant of such semi-permanent status burdens the public exchequer and requires financial involvements. This Court has taken a note that Sub-rule (4) does not mention anything regarding financial involvements. It is settled proposition of law that the Courts cannot issue directions to the concerned authorities for making appointment or grant of such a status as it burdens the public exchequer and for that purpose reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Tejram Parasramji Bambhate, (10) and Government of Orissa vs. Harprasad Das (11). Such matters are of public policy and unless it is shown to be arbitrary, the Court cannot interfere and no such direction cannot be issued. ;