HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8468/2004 Shankar Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, 1/244, Housing Board Colony, Sawai Madhopur District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Chief Conservator Of Forests, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Conservator Of Forest And Dy. Director Core Area Tiger Project, National Park Ranthambore, Sawa, Distt. Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Gupta for Mr. Rahul Lodha, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/02/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents for making payment to the petitioner as per the pay scale applicable for the post of Pump Attendant/Driver from his initial date of appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the date of appointment of the petitioner, the work of a Driver is being taken from him but the salary of the said post is not being paid to him. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by way of filing an appeal bearing No.1262/1996 and the (2 of 4) [CW-8468/2004] same was disposed of on 29.04.1999 with directions to the respondents to make clarity about the nature of appointment of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order as well as the order passed by the Labour Court vide award dated 11.02.1994, the respondents have appointed the petitioner on the post of Pump Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 775-13-840-15-1005-20-1025. Learned counsel submits that inspite of passing of the aforesaid orders, till date, the respondents are taking the service of a Driver from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that several office orders, in this regard, have been issued by the respondents vide Annexures 6 to 22. Learned counsel submits that, once respondents are taking the work of a Driver from the petitioner, they are supposed to give the pay scale of the said post. Hence, under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no sanctioned post of Driver in their office and the petitioner never discharged the duties on the post of Pump Driver. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the award passed by the Labour Court, the matter of the petitioner was examined and appointment was given to the petitioner on the post of Pump Attendant under the pay scale of Rs. 775-13-840-15-1005-20-1025 vide order dated 16.08.1999. Learned counsel submits that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of with directions to the (3 of 4) [CW-8468/2004] respondents to examine the matter of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, in case, any grievance still survives. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the order dated 16.08.1999 was passed, which was neither assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal nor before this Court. Hence, under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Lastly, he argued that the work of a Driver has been occasionally taken by the respondents but the same is not taken on regular basis, hence, under these circumstances also, the petitioner cannot claim himself as a Driver and claim the salary and pay scale of the said post. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that with regard to the similar grievance, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal by way of filing an appeal bearing No.1262/1996 and the same was disposed of on 29.04.1999, which clearly indicates that a direction was issued to the respondents to examine the matter of the petitioner and pass fresh order with regard to his appointment. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the matter was examined by the respondents and it was observed that there was no post of Pump Driver in the office, hence appointment was given to the petitioner on the post of Pump Attendant vide order dated 16.08.1999. The petitioner has not assailed the aforesaid order neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court, and in absence (4 of 4) [CW-8468/2004] thereof, he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to pass any order in favour of the petitioner. 9. However, looking to the fact that the respondents have issued certain documents marked as Annexure 6 to 22, which indicate that on many occasions, the work of the Driver has been taken from the petitioner by the respondents. If it is so, the respondents are further directed to re-examine the matter of the petitioner and pass fresh order and, in case, they come to the conclusion that services of the petitioner are required on the post of Driver, they would pass necessary orders in this regard. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. All applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/26