D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ... JUDGMENT
...
1. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. ANIL ACHARYA.
2. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.547/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. ASHOK KUMAR SHRIMALI.
3. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.565/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. KAMLESH VYAS & ORS.
4. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.566/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. SURESH KUMAR.
5. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.575/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. CHANDRA PRAKASH SONI6 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.577/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. NARPAT SINGH & ORS.
7. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.578/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. ASHOK KUMAR KHATRI & ORS.
8. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.579/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. GOKUL PRASAD ACHARYA.
9. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.585/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. RAJESH KUMAR DAVE. 10.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.625/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. SHYAM SINGH. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 2 11.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.671/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. MAHESH CHANDRA & ORS. 12.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.723/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. SHYAM SUNDER PUROHIT & ORS. 13.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.809/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. NATHI SINGH CHAUDHARY. 14.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.822/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. RANG BIHARI UDAWAT & ORS. 15.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.831/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. BRAHAM DEV PUROHIT. 16.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.838/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. VIJAY MATHUR. 17.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.878/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. NAND KISHORE. 18.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.879/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. SHYOKUMAR. 19.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.958/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. RAJESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY. 20.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1040/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. SUKH RAM SHARMA. 21.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1041/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. PRABHU DAYAL. 22.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1063/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. RAJESH VYAS & ORS. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 3 23.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1106/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. RADHEYSHYAM & ORS. 24.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1155/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. DAUDAYAL SHARMA. 25.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1250/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. RAJ KUMAR SEWAG. 26.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1257/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. MANOJ BANSAL. 27.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1259/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. SURENDRA PUROHIT. 28.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1261/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. OM PRAKASH DADHICH & ANR. 29.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1392/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. KRISHNA GOYAL & ANR. 30.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1405/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. GHANSHYAM SHARMA. 31.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1485/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. NAGA RAM PRAJAPAT & ORS. 32.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1487/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. 33.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1511/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. SATYA NARAYAN. 34.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1512/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. BHANWAR LAL & ANR. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 4 35.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1528/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. HARI RAM JANGID & ANR. 36.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1529/2014 STATE OF RAJ.& ORS. VS. DINESH CHANDRA PUROHIT & ORS. 37.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1536/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. SURENDRA BISHNOI. 38.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1543/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. OM PRAKASH & ORS. 39.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1547/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. JUGAL SINGH. 40.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1564/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. BHANWAR LAL THOLIA'S LRS. 41.D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1568/2014 STATE OF RAJ.
& ORS. VS. BHANWAR SINGH. DATE OF JUDGMENT
:::
20. 11.2014 HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Mr.PR Singh, AAG a/w Mr.NK Mehta & Mr.Dinesh Ojha for the State appellants. Mr.Manoj Bhandari ) Mr.RS Saluja ) for the respondents. Mr.CS Bissa ) Mr.Mahesh Thanvi ) Mr.VL Mathur ) Mr.Deepak Bora ) ...
1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 5 2. The State of Rajasthan has given good and sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing all the special appeals. The applications for condonation of delay are accordingly allowed.
3. This batch of special appeals have been filed by the State of Rajasthan through the Principle Secretary, Public Health & Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur ; Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health & Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur ; Chief Personnel Officer, Headquarter, Public Health & Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur ; and Superintending Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, District Circle, Jodhpur and other appellants, challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2013 and other similar judgments, by which, the writ petitions filed by the respondents to grant them semi-permanent status on the post of Store Munshi on completion of two years of service, in accordance with Rajasthan P.W.D. (B & R), including Gardens, Irrigation, Land Development (Programme) Circle C.A.D. Chambal Department Kota (including its Divisions/sub- divisions) Water Works, Ayurvedic and Forest Department (excluding Departmental Operation Circle) Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules of 1964') and to grant them all other benefits, which they are entitled for, in accordance with law. The writ petitions were allowed on 11.12.2013 on the ground that the controversy involved in the writ petition is covered by the judgments of this Court dated 19.4.1988 in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1319/1987 (Kamal Kumar D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 6 vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.); dated 21.10.2009, in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6423/2008 (Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.); dated 13.12.2012 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2417/2011 (Latif Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.); and dated 03.2.2012 in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (w) No.845/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Hem Singh & Ors.).
4. It is submitted that in all the writ petitions, giving rise to the special appeals, the facts regarding the initial appointment of the respondents are different. Most of the respondents were appointed on the post of Helper Gr.II, Beldars and in other categories of Class-IV employees, given in Schedule-II of the Rules of 1964, in the pay scale Rs.710-910 which has been revised in the pay scale of Rs.775-1025 (Helper Gr.II), and in the pay scale of Rs.700-865 which has been revised in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 (Beldar). The respondents were not given appointment initially as Store Munshi, as the post of Store Munshi is provided in Schedule-II of the Rules of 1964, in the pay scale Rs.880-1680 which was revised in the pay scale of Rs.950-1680.
5. It is submitted by learned Addl. Advocate General that prima-facie, it may appear that all the writ petitions were covered by the Division Bench judgment of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.845/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Hem Singh & Ors.) and another Division Bench judgment of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Lal Chand & Ors.) decided D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 7 at Jaipur Bench of this Court. In fact, each case had to be decided on its own facts.
6. We find that in almost all the writ petitions, which have given rise to the special appeals, it was conceded by learned counsel appearing for the State that the controversy is covered by the judgment in Hem Singh's case (supra) and Lal Chand's case (supra), in which, it was admitted that the respondents (writ petitioners) have been discharging the functions of Store Munshi, since inception, and further that this fact has been admitted by the Committee of Experts constituted by the State, which was on record. The Additional Advocate General states that the State counsel had never made such concession to the Court and on which, directions have been issued that the State respondents should give semi-permanent status to the petitioners on the post of Store Munshi from the date they completed two years of service from the initial appointment and permanent status from the date they completed ten years of service. The Court has also directed that they will be entitled to all consequential benefits.
7. The Division Bench deciding Hem Singh's case had further observed, on the statement given at the Bar, that consequent upon passing of the impugned order, the State has passed all consequential orders in compliance thereof in relation to each respondent and further also payments were made to each of them and then order of confirmation under the Rules were also D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 8 passed and in that view of the matter, the Court found that the entire order has been implemented fully.
8. The State has filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18046/2012 against the order dated 3.2.2012 (final judgment) in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.845/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Hem Singh & Ors.) in which, on 6.7.2012, the Supreme Court has passed the following order :- “Issue notice limited to the question whether the arrears payable to the respondents can be limited to the year 2007 onwards. Dasti in addition, is also permitted.”. 9. It is submitted that the State Government has decided to file an I.A. in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18046/2012 to review the order dated 6.7.2012 and to open the entire matter on merits. The I.A., however, has not been filed so far.
10. A number of orders have been placed before us, in which, the concession was given by learned counsel appearing for the State respondents, that similar orders, as in Hem Singh's case, have been passed on the ground that the controversy in issue is covered by Hem Singh's judgment.
11. We have also been informed that a large number of special appeals have also been dismissed on concessions given by the State of Rajasthan that the matters are covered by Hem Singh's judgment. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 9 12. In these appeals, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that the facts of each case were not examined. He submitted that learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan did not have any authority to make any concession. In fact, most of the orders have been passed, without even calling for the reply, to confirm the facts with regard to the initial appointment of the writ petitioners. It is submitted that in most of the cases, the respondents/writ petitioners were not appointed initially as Store Munshi, which is a post in work charge establishment on a higher grade. They were appointed as Helper Gr.II, Beldar or Class-IV employees in the initial pay scale. He further submitted that in large number of stores, there was no post of Store Munshi and that some of Assistant Engineers had illegally certified the appointment of Helper and Beldar, as Store Munshi and in some cases, where there was only one post of Store Munshi, about 10-20 Beldars or Helpers were shown to be working as Store Munshis. It is submitted that in some other cases, the persons who were appointed as Helper or Beldar, after they were given semi permanent status after two years of service under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, were promoted as Pump Driver and thereafter as Fitter. Since after Hem Singh's case, these persons who were initially appointed as Helpers and Beldars, have been rushing to the Court for getting similar reliefs allowed to them, without calling for the reply. They have been granted same relief whereas they were neither initially appointed as Store Munshi D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 10 nor they could be given semi permanent status or permanent status as Store Munshi, as they were promoted in their trade as Pump Drivers and thereafter, Fitters.
13. It is further submitted by learned Addl. Advocate General that an exercise has been undertaken by the State Government, in view of large number of orders passed by the Court, following Hem Singh's case, to verify the nature of initial appointment of the respondents. He submits that in principle, the State Government has accepted the verdict of Hem Singh but then the ratio of Hem Singh's case must be applied, after verifying the facts of each case, in as much as, each of the respondent was neither initially appointed as Store Munshi nor they are entitled to be given semi permanent status or permanent status. Some of them were not eligible as they were not qualified and many of them have been promoted in their own trade as Pump Driver and Fitter.
14. Learned Addl. Advocate General has also brought to our notice an interesting case in respect of one Mr.Anil Acharya, who is respondent in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.546/2014 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anil Acharya) in which, directions have been given to grant him semi permanent status and thereafter permanent status on the post of Store Munshi from the date of his initial appointment, whereas the same Anil Acharya, had made an application to the State Government, on which a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner in D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 11 Industrial Dispute Misc. No.35/2006 (Anil Acharya s/o Shri Satya Narayan Acharya. vs. Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D. Circle Bikaner, under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to adjudicate as to whether Anil Acharya – workman appointed as work charged Beldar, was wrongly denied the semi permanent status by the order of Executive Engineer on 1.6.1994. The Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 1.2.2012 held that the case of the workman may be examined according to the eligibility and availability of the post within three months, to decide whether the workman was entitled to be promoted as Assistant whereas similar employees have been given the pay scale of Rs.800-1250 by promotion.
15. The award of the Industrial Tribunal shows that whereas Anil Acharya was claiming semi permanent and permanent status as Store Munshi from the date of his initial appointment, the reference made on his application and adjudication was made by the Industrial Tribunal, in which, it was admitted by him that he was initially appointed as Beldar, to consider him for promotion on the post of Assistant on the pay scale of Rs.800-1250.
16. In the present batch of cases, the State Government is in fact trying to rectify its mistake in failing to controvert the pleadings before learned Single Judge. Whereas it is stated that learned Single Judge have, without adverting to the facts of the case, gave equal treatment to all the cases mechanically as in Hem Singh's case, the State did not make any effort to either D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 12 place full facts before the Court nor filed a review petition, in case incorrect concession was made, to bring correct facts on record. Be that as it may, we find that the questions of law have already been decided by the Division Bench in Hem Singh's case and that a large number of Division Bench orders have followed Hem Singh's case, against which, a Special Leave to Appeal is pending before the Supreme Court and in which, a limited notice has been issued, as to whether the respondents are entitled to back wages prior to 2007, when the screening was made and in the circumstances, as a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction, we cannot reopen the questions of law.
17. We, however, find that the writ petitions were required to be decided by learned Single Judge on the facts of each case. Even if the ratio of judgment in Hem Singh's case was to be applied, learned Single Judges were, in the writ petitions giving rise to these special appeals, required to ascertain whether, in fact, the petitioners were initially appointed as Store Munshi and if they were not initially appointed as Store Munshi, the date from which they were working or the work of Store Munshi was given to them, to give them semi permanent or permanent status and consequently, the payment of arrears, after grant of such status.
18. We are relieved of examining the facts of each case, in as much as, we find that the State Government had, prior to 2007, carried out an exercise to find out the facts by screening 550 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 13 such claimants. After detailed screening, only 247 employees, who were found to be working as Store Munshi, were allowed semi permanent status. After the judgments in Hem Singh's case, a large number of cases were decided by this Court, against which Special Appeals were also dismissed, the State Government has, in principle, accepted the upgradation on 1147 posts of Store Munshi and to grant to the persons, who were either initially appointed or subsequently allowed to work as Store Munshi, upgradation subject to screening. In the Government letter No.P.3(25)PHE/1996 Part dated 1.7.2013/3.7.2013 issued by Shri Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal, Deputy Secretary-II in Public Health & Engineering Department of the Government of Rajasthan, in principle, a decision has been communicated to the Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health & Engineering Department, Rajasthan, to upgrade the posts of 1147 Store Munshi with certain conditions. The letter reads as follows:- "र जस न सरक र जन स स अभ न क व ग कम क प. 3(25)प एचई/1996 प र ज पर, द"न क 01.07.2013 03-07-13 मख अभ $ (पश सन) जन स स अभ न क व ग र जस न ज पर, व ष - क प रर$ सह क* क+ 10 ष क स, पर सर+रमश बन , ज न, ब ब$ प"* क, कम+न न क, कम म/ । स" - आपक न+र कम क एफ 9(23) जन स ./क ./2013/630 द"न क 10.05.2013 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 14 मह+" , उपर+क व ष $ग$ पकरण क पर6कण व त व ग क प ल6 सख प. 14(2) व त/नन म/2007 पर कक ग । व त व ग द र नन"= श नस र 1147 सर+रमभश * क, प"* क, कम+न न (Upgradation) क भसद $: सहमन$ ननमन क ह6/श$@ क, स प" न क हA:- 1. क प रर$ स, नन म 1964 क भमक (क-2) व ग क अधCसच D न द"न क 17.02.1995 द र ननरभस$ कर द" , ग , ,। उक क,डर अब ड ईग क,डर हA । अ$: उक अधCसच D न म/ +धच$ सश+Cन ह, $ व ग पस$ $तक ल भ ज , $ कक क भमक (क-2) व ग स, सहमन$ प प कर मत मणडल क सहमन$ प प क ज सक,। 2. क प रर$ स, नन म 1964 क, नन म 3 (ए) क, अ $ग$ 1147 प"* क, समब C म/ ईक ई/उपखणड र सK, क ननC रण कक ज / $ सK, र ररष$ सच D $A र कर आपवत प प कर उनक ननस$ रण कर अन$म ररष$ सधD च * क पक शन कक ज ,। 3. सक ननग इक ई/खणड र ननC रर$ सK, क, अनस र क ज ,। 4. उ ह6 सह क* क सक ननग क ज , ज+ नन कक न$ध क+ स +ग $ ऐ C रर$ कर$, , $ नन कक न$ध स, आज द"न क $क लग $ र भलवपक क कर रह, ह* ए नज ह/ नन कक न$ध स, भलवपक क क अन पम ण प ज र6 कक हआ हA । 5. अन पम ण प ए +ग $ ओ क ज च समबन C$ इक ई/उपखणड क, सह क अभ $ /अधCश ष अभ $ द र मल D "स$ ,ज* स, क ज कर पम णण$ कक ज ,। 6. सक ननग म/ उन सह क* क+ सनममभल$ नह6 कक ज , नज ह*न, सह क क, अन क, आC र पर ककस अ प" पर प"+ नन$ प प कर ल6 हA । द" पD म/ ककस सह क क+ ऐस ल द" ग हA $+ उसम/ व धCक क ह6 क ज / । क *कक नजस व कक न, सह क क, अन क, आC र पर अ प" पर प"+ नन$ प प क हA, ह नन कक न$ध स, भलवपक क कAस, कर सक$ हA?.
7. सक ननग ररष$ -सह- +ग $ क, आC र पर इक ई/खणड र ननमनभलणख$ कम,र6 द र क ज , :
1. अध क- मख अभ $ (पश .) जन स .अभ . व ग 2. स"स गण- 1. क भमक व ग क पन$ननधC2 जन स . अभ . व ग म/ क र$ व त सल हक र (व ग म/ क र$ ल,ख स ग क ररष$म अधCक र6) व त व ग क, पन$ननधC क, रप म/ D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 15 3. ररष क भमक अधCक र6, जन स , अभ , व ग 4. समबन C$ इक ई/ उपखणड क अधCश ष /सह क अभ $ 8. नजन उपखणड* म/ सK, स, अधCक क भमक क र$ हA उनम/ सK, क, अनस र क भमक रख$, हए श,ष एक ह6 खणड क, अ ननकर$म उपखणड* क, ररक प"* पर सम +नज$ ह+ग/ । 9. सर+रमश पर पर ररष$ क ननC रण खणड र कक ज ,ग । ह ननC रण सह क प" पर interse seniority क+ ध न म/ रख$, हए ह+ग । 10.सर+रमश क ,$न शखल X म/ क लपननक ल अदस ईकरण क न$ध स, ", ह+ग $ स$व क ल द"न क 01.07.2013 स, ", ह+ग । अ$: इस समब C म/ आपक, स$र स, $तक ल क ह6 कर क गई क ह6 क सच D न म तब " सख 01 क, नZ$ पस$ सदह$ श घ भ ज न, क शम कर / । कXप इस, स @चच प भमक$ प" न कर/ । "6 , sd/- (क हA ल ल अग ल) श सन उप सधच - दद$
"19. From the aforesaid letter dated 1.7.2013 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, we find that the State Government has, in principle, accepted the upgradation of 1147 posts of Store Munshi with the conditions of screening each and every applicant. The conditions stated in the letter proposed to screen out all those persons, who were not eligible and those who have been promoted in their own trade other than Store Munshi. The State Government also proposes to examine the case of each and every applicant, with the original documents being produced by the Assistant Engineer/Executive Engineer of the unit/sub- division. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 16 20. We find that since the exercise of screening and to weed out those persons, who were not entitled to the benefits as have been given in Hem Singh's case, has already been initiated and that the list of eligible persons, after screening, has already been forwarded to the State Government, it is not necessary for this Court to examine each and every case for his/their entitlement to the benefits to be given in accordance with judgment of Hem Singh.
21. We make it clear that Hem Singh's case was decided on the findings that the petitioners in those cases were either employed initially on the post of Store Munshi in Work Charge Establishment of Public Health & Engineering Department or they were allowed to work subsequently as Store Munshi and that they were entitled to be granted semi permanent status after completing two years of service and permanent status after completing 10 years of service. On the facts, as they were given in Hem Singh's case, it was decided that all such persons were entitled to consequential benefits of working on the post of Store Munshi. The benefits, however, had to be given from the date, they were working as Store Munshi and for which, they should be eligible and have not received any promotion in their field, such as Pump Driver or Fitter.
22. Now since the screening is in process and the report of the Screening Committee is under consideration of the State D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 17 government, we do not propose to examine each and every case for ascertaining the facts as to whether the respondents are entitled to be given benefits and whether they will be entitled to any arrears. Any decision taken by the State Government will abide by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the Special Leave to Appeal, in which, notices have been confined to payment of arrears prior to 2007 or of any orders, which the Supreme Court, pass on an application, which the State Government proposes to move.
23. We are informed that the Work Charge Rules of 1964 have, since, been repealed and that the Work Charge Establishments have been abolished, and thus, the State Government must, find out the corresponding employment and pay scales to be applicable to Store Munshi, in which the respondents, if they are entitled and eligible after screening, may be absorbed or regularised, in terms of the judgment of Hem Singh's case.
24. On the aforesaid discussion, all these special appeals are disposed of with directions that the respondents will be entitled to the benefit of Division Bench judgment in Hem Singh's case, only after and subject to the Screening to be carried out for weeding out the persons, who were either not eligible or have received promotions in their own trade other than the trade of Store Munshi. It goes without saying that this judgment will be subject to the judgment of Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Special D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.546/2014 & 40 other connected appeals. 18 Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18046/2012. There shall be no orders as to costs.
25. All the stay applications stand dismissed.
26. A copy of this order be placed in the files of all the connected appeals. (PRAKASH GUPTA), J.
(SUNIL AMBWANI), Actg.CJ.
S.Phophaliya/-