Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dashrath Singh vs State Of Raj. And Ors. ... on 10 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:1742]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13942/2013
Dashrath Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. And Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Saluja.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Mishra, Government Counsel.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
10/01/2025
1. Under challenge herein is a Circular dated 17.02.2003
(Annex.8), vide which, envisaging that instead of bringing the
work charge employees in regular establishment, they will be
declared permanent in work charged establishment after
regularization in service under Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
2. Briefly speaking relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are
as follows:
2.1 The petitioner was initially appointed on a casual basis in the
work-charge establishment of the Forest Department at IGNP
Stage-II, Bikaner, on 1.4.1986. His services were terminated in
November 1987, prompting the petitioner to file a complaint with
the Conciliation Officer, Labour Department, Bikaner. During
conciliation, an agreement was reached that the petitioner would
withdraw his agitation and be reinstated without wages for the
period of absence due to termination, though his service would
not be considered a break. Subsequently, extraordinary leave was
[2025:RJ-JD:1742] (2 of 4) [CW-13942/2013]
granted to the petitioner in December 2002 as he neared
retirement.
2.2. In accordance with a Supreme Court decision on 29.10.1991,
the petitioner was granted semi-permanent status from 1.4.1988,
after completing two years of service. However, his services were
terminated again on 1.9.1993, and an appeal is pending. Despite
this, continuity of service was granted, and he was placed on
probation with a pay scale of Rs.750-940. On 7.10.1997, following
the completion of an inquiry on 19.8.1997, his pay was fixed in
the scale of Rs.700-865/- from 1.4.1988.
2.3. The State Government issued an order on 4.3.1998 stating
that work-charge employees with 10 years of service by
31.12.1997 would be declared regular from 1.1.1998 and brought
under the Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR). This order was
reiterated on 16.1.1999, confirming the regularization of eligible
employees. However, due to an administrative error, the
petitioner's regularization was not processed until 15.7.2003.
2.4. On 17.2.2003, the State Government issued another circular,
declaring that instead of regularizing work-charge employees, they
would be declared permanent in the work-charge establishment
under the RAPPSRS Act, 1999, following a judgment by the
Division Bench of this Court. As a result, the petitioner was
declared permanent as of 20.9.2006, losing the benefit of
regularization under RSR.
2.5. Despite the repeal of work-charge rules in 1995, work-charge
employees were eventually included under RSR by order dated
24.3.2011. Consequently, the petitioner was regularized on
13.6.2011, based on his completion of 10 years of service, but his
[2025:RJ-JD:1742] (3 of 4) [CW-13942/2013]
leave encashment benefits were granted from 1.4.2011 instead of
1.1.1998.
2.6. The petitioner, a member of the Van Sharmik Sangh, Bikaner,
requested regularization from 1.1.1998, and the Dy. Conservator
of Forest sought clarification from the Divisional Chief Conservator
of Forests. The latter responded on 21.6.2012, admitting the
mistake in regularizing the petitioner from 1.1.1999 instead of
1.1.1998.
2.7. The petitioner retired on 26.8.2013 upon reaching the age of
superannuation. Despite clarification from the Divisional Chief
Conservator of Forests on 7.6.2013 that the decision on
regularization should be made by the Dy. Conservator of Forests,
the Dy. Conservator of Forests wrote again on 21.10.2013,
outlining the complications caused by prior decisions, including
postponement of increments and substitution of regularization
orders. Despite this, no further clarification was provided, leaving
the petitioner's retiral dues unresolved.
2.8. As a result of this situation, the petitioner has filed this
petition, seeking resolution of the issue of his retiral dues.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and have perused the case file.
4. First and foremost, I am unable to persuade myself to
condone the delay in challenging the Circular dated 17.02.2003
(Annex.8) after a lapse of more than 10 years by filing the present
writ petition.
5. In fact, on the other hand, having taken the benefit of the
same very circular with respect to the regularization of the
petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1999, it appears that the petitioner was
[2025:RJ-JD:1742] (4 of 4) [CW-13942/2013]
advised to challenge the same on the ground that since he had
completed 10 years of service, and as per the applicable The Work
Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964, an employee attains the
status of a permanent employee after 10 years of service.
6. No doubt the status of permanent has been given under the
work charge rules, but that is only to ensure that after such a long
length of service, an employee is not rendered jobless at the
whims and fancies of the employer. To treat the status of
permanent under work charge employees rules as synonymous
with that of a regular employee under the Rajasthan Service
Rules, 1951, is fraught with the danger of a deemed regularization
of every employee merely because he has rendered 10 years of
service. That is, no doubt, the intent of the The Work Charge
Employees Service Rules, 1964 and/or Rajasthan Service Rules,
1951. Regularization must be in accordance with the applicable
policy of the State, and none of those policies are under challenge
before this Court.
7. In view of the aforesaid, there are no grounds to interfere.
8. Dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as on
merits.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
165-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
