Honble YADAV, J. — The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Union having its Registration No.DRTU/BK/24/89 duly registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is looking after the welfare of its members.

(2). The petitioner-Union has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction from this Court to the effect that the workmen mentioned in Schedule A to .the writ petition may be given ouasi-permanent and permanent status on the basis of length of their services in their respective Pay Scales with all consequential benefits on the ground, inter-alia, that the final seniority list of Daily Wage Workers mentioned in Schedule A to the writ petition working under the Divisional Forest Officer, Hanumangarh has already been prepared indicating the length of their services. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has disclosed the Standing Orders for workmen engaged in Forest Department of the Government of Rajasthan, which has come into force. Clause 3 of Chapter III of the said Standing Orders provides the following classification of workman: —

"All workmen appointed to the services shall be classified as under : —

(a) Casual (b) Temporary (c) Quasi-permanent (d) Permanent

(A) Casual Workmen :- Shall mean those who are employed for a period for exceeding three months for work, which is essentially of a casual nature.

(B) Temporary Workmen : Shall mean those who are employed in connection with a temporary increase in work or works expected last for a period exceeding 6 months. Their employment shall last for the period the work or the appointment lasts. No notice shall be needed for the termination of their appointment.

(C) Quasi-permanent: Shall mean workmen declared as such by the appointing authority. A workman who has rendered continuous service for a period of not less than two years may be declared quasi-permanent by the appointing authority after recording a certificate regarding the workmens suitability for the conferment of such status.

(D) Permanent: Shall mean workmen declared as such by the appointing authority. A. quasi-permanent workmen may be declared permanent against the permanent posts sanctioned from time to time preference being given on the basis of length of quasi- permanent service on the posts involving similar nature of duties."

(3). After service of notices, respondents No.l to 4 have filed return to the writ petition. In paragraph 5 of their reply, they have stated with regard to the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that out of 16 persons mentioned in Schedule A to the writ petition, 15 persons except Shri Shiv Lal Meena were declared Semi - permanent w.e.f.30.3.92. It is nowhere mentioned in paragraph 5 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that Shri Shiv Lal Meena was not found suitable for giving him quasi-permanent status along with other 15 workmen. As regards, the averments made in paragraph 6 of their writ petition, it is stated in paragraph 6 of their reply that the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition are not disputed.

(4). I have heard Mr. S.N. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner but no one appeared on behalf of respondents No.l to 4 irrespective of due service and after filing of return to the writ petition to oppose the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-Union.

(5). The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in reply to paragraph 5 of the writ petition, respondents No.l to 4 have stated that out of 16 persons mentioned in Schedule A to the writ petition, 15 persons except Shri Shiv Lal Meena were declared semi-permanent vide order dated 30.3.92. According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have not given any reason as to why the same benefit of declaration of Semi-permanent was not extended to Shri Shiv Lal Meena in the order dated 30.3.92. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, denial of the benefit of declaratio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document