Honble MADAN, J. — This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court by the above named petitioner in the matter of interpretation of the relevant Rules of the Rajasthan Public

Works Department (B & R), including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works & Ayurvedic Departments Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules). The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Beldar in the year 1966 but has been discharging his duties as helper in installation and repair works of sanitary fittings with the respondents. Since there was no helper with the department during the relevant period the services of the petitioner were taken by the department for discharging the duties of the helper which the petitioner has been discharging for the last 10 years. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner has submitted an application on 25.6.79 to the concerned authorities for appointing the petitioner as helper (vide Annex. 1), since the petitioner had been discharging the duties of the helper ever since his appointment as Sanitary Fitter. A perusal of the said application reveals that there is endorsement on the same both by the Assistant Engineer as well as Junior Engineer to the effect that the petitioner who was appointed as Beldar has been working as Sanitary Fitter for the past many years and his work is found to be satisfactory.

(2). It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the service record of the petitioner, lying with the respondents, will prove that the petitioner has been all through out doing the work as Helper in sanitary fitting and repair work and he has been successfully discharging his duties from time to time.

(3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 wherein it has been specifically provided that the employee who is in continuous service for two years or more, shall be eligible for the status of semipermanent work-charged employee and as per Sub-rule 2 of the said Rule, the employee who is in continuous service for a period of 10 (years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employee. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been working as a Helper/Sanitary Fitter with the respondents for the past more than 10 years, as such he is entitled to be declared as permanent Helper and is also entitled to be paid salary for the same on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

(4). In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kamal Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1), decided on 09.4.88. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court that there is nothing in the Rules of 1964 that the concerned employee is entitled only to the conferment of the status of semi permanent and all that is required is that the employee must have rendered continuous service for two years or more. Since it is an admitted position in the said case which was not disputed by the respondents and that the petitioner had discharged his duties for the continuous period of more than 2 years as the Store Munshi all though he was appointed as a Beldar, it was held by this Court that since the petitioner had been continuously in service for more than 2 years, he was entitled to be conferred the status of semi-permanent employee in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964. With the above observations the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was held entitled for all consequential benefits.

(5). Likewise in Lalit Pawan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), decided on 12.3.91, this Court had taken the similar view in favour of an employee as referred to above. After having placed relianc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document