Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated May 26, 1994 passed by the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Sub Division Negadia, whereby the petitioner was transferred. The petitioner also makes prayer seeking issuance of direction in the name of respondents to regularise the petitioner on the post of LDC and to make payment of the wages of the said post from January 1980 with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that on January 27. 1980 he came to be appointed by the respondents on the post of Helper. Since the petitioner was literate person having Higher Secondary School Certificate the respondents started taking work of the post of L.D.C. On March 31, 1982 the Assistant Engineer, Deoli issued an office order directing the petitioner that in addition to his own duties he will also extend his duties as Cashier cum Clerk. This was done with a view to improve the working of the establishment. In pursuance of this order temporary identity card was also issued to him as he was required to deal with cash in Rank. Again on January 27, 1983 the petitioner was required to prepare and deal with T.A. Bills, Medical Bills etc. with one Devkishan Sharma, who was nominated to perform the duties of Cashier. In this way the petitioner was assigned the duties of Clerk, which he discharged efficiently, diligently and satisfactorily. The Assistant Engineer issued certificates from time depicting satisfactory working of the petitioner. Six of such certificates have been annexed with the writ petition. On Jan. 13, 1992 the Assistant Engineer issued another order whereby Shankar Lal Meena working as Clerk in Establishment Section was required to give charge to the petitioner and in pursuance of the said order the charge of establishment section was handed over to the petitioner. Though the petitioner was discharging the duties of the post of Clerk right from the year 1980 but the pay of the said post was not given to him. On April 30, 1984 an application was submitted by the petitioner requesting that he may be paid the wages of the post of clerk as he was discharging the duties of the said post continuously and he may also be regularised on the said post. Copy of the application has also been annexed with the writ petition. Thereafter on May 26, 1994 an order was issued by the Assistant Engineer whereby the petitioner was ordered to be transferred. Copy of the said order was not handed over to the petitioner nor he was relieved from the said post. The petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition has incorporated the order dated May 26, 1994.
(3.) The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition with the averments that the petitioner cannot be regularised on the post of L.D.C. as he is not eligible for the said post. The petitioner was given appointment as Helper on daily wages basis w.e.f. January 27, 1980 and thereafter on completion of two years service he was declared semi permanent in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Work Charged Service Rules vide order dated May 4, 1984. The pay fixations of the petitioner were carried out accordingly. Pursuant to the order dated May 4, 1984 the petitioner has already received the benefits and he did not raise any protest against the order dated May 4, 1984 or agitated the matter before the appropriate forum but in fact continued to discharge the duties of helper and received the benefits accordingly. Copy of the order dated May 4, 1984 has been produced by the respondents as Annexure R/1. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot be appointed as L.D.C. as he is not selected by the R.P.S.C. The petitioner is guilty of concealment/suppressing the material facts and the petitidn deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The respondents have also annexed the copy of the order dated August 26, 1994 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoli District Tonk as well as the copy of the plaint dated June 6, 1994, instituted by the petitioner before the said court against the respondents seeking quashing of the order dated May 26, 1994. The respondents contention is that the writ petition is not maintainable as two parallel proceedings can not run together in the matter of same cause of action. It is also contended that the writ petition involves disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated without adducing evidence and the proper course is to agitate the matter is to raise an industrial dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.;