Dharmveer Sen Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sunil kumar garg, j. 1. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed by the petitioner on 21.8.1997 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to extend the benefit of regular appointment from the date of initial entry in the service i.e. 18.5.1993 with all consequential benefits.2. the case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-the father of the petitioner was in the service of the respondents' department as assistant traffic inspector, who died all of a sudden while in active service and after his death, the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground as ldc vide order annex.1 dated 12.5.1993, but the same was given on casual/daily wages basis of rs. 25/- per day and in pursuance of the said order annex.1, the petitioner joined his duty on 18.5.1993 and a copy of the joining report is marked as annex.2.the further case of the petitioner is that after joining, he came to know that the respondents were giving regular appointments to the dependents of those who died while in service and for that, order annex.3 dated 25.1.1990 may be referred to, while the petitioner was given appointment on daily wages basis through order annex. 1 and therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents that his services be regularised with effect from the date of initial appointment.the further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, he was given regular appointment through order annex.5 dated 18.5.1996 and in that order annex.5, the fact that the petitioner had worked for three years in the department of the respondents had been mentioned.the further case of the petitioner is that through order annex.6 dated 6.9.1996, regular appointment on compassionate ground was given to one gopichand solanki after death of his father.the further case of the petitioner is that through order annex.7 dated 24.6.1997, the services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from 18.5.1997, but according to the petitioner, his services should have been regularised as ldc with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 18.5.1993 and not from 18.5.1997 when he satisfactorily completed one year probation period after regular appointment through order annex.5. according to the petitioner, the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 18.5.1993 of article 14 of the constitution of india. hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above.a reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that since the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualifications of the post of ldc, therefore, he was required to be given training of the post of ldc and he was also required to be given the training of typing and in this regard, ordered dated 20.5.1993 and 14.2.1994 annex.r/3 and annex.r/4 respectively may be referred to and a bare perusal of orders annex.r/3 and annex.r/4 shows that the petitioner would get the training of typing in the office of the respondents. therefore, though order annex.7 dated 24.6.1997, the services of the petitioner were rightly regularised with effect from 18.5.1997 when he satisfactorily completed one year probation period after regular appointment through order annex.5 and he was not entitled to regularisation of service with effect form 18.5.1993 as he was appointed on daily wages basis through order annex.1 dated 12.5.1993. apart from this, since the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, he had no vested right to claim regularisation from the date of initial appointment. hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.3. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.4. there is no dispute on the point that the petitioner was given appointment as ldc on compassionate ground after the death of his father through order annex. 1 dated 12.5.1993, but the same was given on daily wages basis of rs. 25/- per day and in pursuance of the said appointment order annex.1, the petitioner jointed duty on 18.5.1993.5. there is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner was performing the duties of ldc since 18.5.1993.6. there is also no dispute on the point that through order annex.5 dated 18.5.1996, the petitioner was given regular appointment as ldc and in that order annex.5, there is a specific mention of the fact that the petitioner was doing the job of ldc in the department of the respondents for the last there years.7. there is also no dispute on the point that through order annex.7 dated 24.6.1997, the services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from 18.5.1996 when he satisfactorily completed one year probation period after regular appointment through annex.5.8. the question that arises for consideration is that whether in the facts and circumstances just mentioned above, the petitioner, who was given appointment as ldc on compassionate ground, is entitled to regularisation from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 18.5.1993 or not.9. the division bench of the this court in state of rajasthan and anr. v. ajay sharma (1), has observed that persons appointed on compassionate ground have to be treated as regularly recruited persons and as members of service,10. therefore, when this being the position, the petitioner, who was appointed on compassionate ground, should have been treated as regularly appointed with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 18.5.1993.11. from perusing the order annex.5 dated 18.5.1996 it appears that the petitioner was working as ldc in the department of the respondents for the last three years when he was given regular appointment and it means that his work was found satisfactory by the respondents. therefore, for all reasons, the petitioner is entitled to regularisation with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 18.5.1993.12. this court in vijay singh v. the state road transport corporation (2) and shyam sunder v. rajasthan state road transport corporation (3), observed that the persons appointed on compassionate ground were entitled to regularisation of service with effect from the date of their initial appointments.13. thus, in view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of service as ldc with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e. 18.5.1993 and therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner as ldc with effect from the date of his initial appointments i.e. 18.5.1993, with all consequential benefits and consequently, the order annex.7 dated 24.6.1997 regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from 18.5.1997-stands quashed and set aside.no order as to costs.