Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hira Lal vs State And Ors on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14759/2013
Hira Lal S/o Shri Udai Lal Ji Dhabai, by caste-Gurjar, aged about
46 years, resident of Village Ghorela, Post Sisarma, Tehsil Girwa,
District Udaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer (Rural), Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Circle Udaipur (Raj.)
4. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, City Division-II, Udaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Bissa
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjana Jawa, Dy.GC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
20/10/2022
By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the
action of the respondents for granting him semi permanent status
as 'Beldar' instead of 'Helper'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
passed in the case of Durga Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2932/2009) decided on
15.05.2013 and the subsequent judgment passed in the cases of
Timothi & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.10841/2017) decided on 04.09.2018 &
(2 of 3) [CW-14759/2013]
Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.13209/2017) decided on 20.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of
the present petitioner is totally akin to that of Raghuveer
Singh's case (supra) and Timothi's case (supra) who were also
the persons appointed alongwith him and find place in the
seniority list issued by the Department on 20.03.1998.
Learned counsel for the respondents did not refute the
position of law regarding the eligibility of the petitioner but she
submitted that at the relevant time sanction for only eighteen
posts was received and therefore eighteen persons were granted
the status as directed. She further submitted that as no further
post of 'Helper' was created and vacancy does not exist therefore,
the present petitioner cannot be granted the status of 'Helper'.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners in the case of Writ
Petition No.10841/2017 (Timothi Vs. State & Ors) (supra) and Writ
Petition No.13209/2017 (Raghuveer Singh Vs. State & Ors.)
(supra) are totally similarly situated persons and were granted the
benefits in light of Durga Singh's case (supra). Therefore, the
present petitioner cannot be deprived of the same relief which has
been granted to similarly situated people by the Department. The
case of Timothi (supra) was decided in the year 2018 and that of
Raghuveer Singh (supra) on 20.05.2022. Therefore, when the
petitioners therein have been granted the benefits as late as in the
years 2018 and 2022, the present petitioner cannot be deprived of
the same right.
(3 of 3) [CW-14759/2013]
In view of the fact that the legal position as laid down in the
case of Durga Singh (supra) has not been disputed, the present
petition is disposed of in the light of the ratio as laid down in the
case of Durga Singh (supra). The respondents are directed to
confer semi permanent and permanent status upon the petitioner
on the post of 'Helper' instead of 'Beldar' with effect from the date
he was entitled for the same under the Work Charged Employee
Service Rules, 1964. The petitioner would be entitled for all the
consequential benefits.
(REKHA BORANA),J
102-Dharmendra/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
