JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is an employee of the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (a Government of Rajasthan undertaking) (hereinafter to be referred as "the Corporation"), has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-afia that the Corporation is a statutory body wholly controlled and managed by the State of Rajasthan and hence amenable to the writ Jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (Act No. 58 of 1962) for short "Act of 1962" and with the previous sanction of the State Government, derived from the Central Act, the Corporation has enacted Regulations of L974 for governing service conditions of its staff hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations" which came into force w.e.f. 20.1.1995 i.e. the day of their publication in the Gazette Extra Ordinary. 2. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the impugned action of the respondents in introducing the impugned amendment of the recruitment schedule appended to the staff Regulations which was notified by the Managing Director of the Corporation (respondent No. 2) vide office-order dated 14.9.1992 on the grounds inter-alia that in absence of the prior approval of the State Government by the Board of Directors, they were not justified in carrying out retrospective amendment of the said Regulations and which is absolutely illegal and grossly violative of the relevant provisions of the Regulations and hence non-est. The petitioner has further assailed the impugned action of the respondents in having denied to the petitioner the benefit of annual grade increments in pursuance of the above referred amendment to the recruitment schedule on the ground that at the time of the promotion of the petitioner to the post of stenographer from the post of steno-typist, no minimum experience as steno-typist was specified in the Regulations and the petitioner was accorded the benefit of pay-fixation under Rule 26-A of the R.S.R. and the date of Annual Grade Increment was also notified under office-order dated 16.1.1991. It has been contended in this regard that certain rights having been accrued and got vested with the petitioner for the benefit of promotion way back in July, 1990, cannot be taken away as a result of subsequent amendment in the Regulations and that too retrospectively. It has been contended in this regard that certain rights having been accrued and got vested with the petitioner for the benefit of promotion way back in July, 1990, cannot be taken away as a result of subsequent amendment in the Regulations and that too retrospectively. The petitioner has further assailed the authority of the Corporation to amend the Staff Regulations retrospectively. It has further been contended in this regard that under sub-clause (q) of Regulation-2 of the Regulations, 'Schedule' has been defined to mean the Schedule attached to these Regulations and thus the Schedule is part and parcel of the, Regulations. Regulation 37 of the Regulations provides as under "37. Amendments:- Amendments to the appendix and/or Schedules forming part of these rules may be made by the Board. Amendments to the Regulations may be made by the Board with prior approval of the government." 3. It will be apparent from the above that the respondent-Board has got the statutory power vested to it by virtue of the aforesaid Regulations to carry out amendments to the appendix or schedule forming part of the rules which may be framed by the Board with prior approval of the state Government and such amendments may be carried out from time to time by the Board as may be necessary and expedient to carry out necessary functions of the Corporation. 4. The petitioner has further contended that before carrying out the amendments to the recruitment schedule as notified by the respondent No. 2 vide office-order dated 14.9.1992 (Annexure-12) no prior approval of the State Government was obtained by the Board of Directors functioning under the overall administrative control of respondent No. 2 and therefore the said amendments are absolutely illegal and grossly violative of the aforesaid provisions. With regard to the promotion policy of the respondents derived from the Regulations, the petitioner has assailed the impugned action of the respondents in giving the promotional benefits to other employees of the Corporation who do not possess the requisite experience as prescribed in the amended recruitment schedule, while denying the same to the petitioner is discriminatory. With regard to the promotion policy of the respondents derived from the Regulations, the petitioner has assailed the impugned action of the respondents in giving the promotional benefits to other employees of the Corporation who do not possess the requisite experience as prescribed in the amended recruitment schedule, while denying the same to the petitioner is discriminatory. In this context the petitioner as further contended that the impugned order dated 16.1.1991 vide Annexure-6 which is still operative, there is no reasonable cause or ground or justification for the respondents to deny the benefit of annual Grade Increments to the petitioner on the post of stenographer which he continues to hold till date. 5. Being aggrieved.by the impugned action of the respondents in context of the above back ground in having denied the benefit of annual Grade Increments to the petitioner on the post of stenographer w.e.f. 3.7.1991 onwards, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned action of the respondents in having carried out the amendment of the recruitment schedule of the Regulations as notified by the office-order dated 14.9.1992 as issued by the respondent No. 2 for the following reasons : (a) The impugned amendment of the recruitment schedule of the Staff Regulations retrospectively with effect from 24.5.1990 is grossly illegal, without justification and without authority of law. The Board has no authority to carry out the amendment retrospectively, (b) No amendment can be given effect to retrospectively so as to deprive the petitioner of his vested rights with regard to the promotion on the post of stenographer, the benefit of pay fixation and Annual Grade Increments which had already been accorded to the petitioner on account of his promotion, (c) The Schedule as defined in Regulation 2(q) of the Regulations is very much part & parcel of the Regulations and no amendment therein could have been made by the respondents without prior approval of the state Government as envisaged under Regulation 37, (d) The impugned action of respondent in having extended the promotional benefits to its large number of employees prior to the amendment of the recruitment schedule as well as the benefit of pay-fixation and Annual Grade Increments having been extended to other employees holding similar posts, while having denied the said benefits to the petitioner has resulted in gross discrimination, (e) The requisite experience of three years as prescribed in the recruitment schedule for the purposes of adjudging the eligibility of candidates for promotion to the post of stenographer from the post of steno-typist is also illegal on the ground that prior to the said amendment no experience was prescribed in the recruitment schedule and the petitioner was as such fully eligible and qualified for such promotion, (f) The petitioner had earlier challenged his reversion from the post of stenographer to that of steno-typist in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5916/1990 and this court had granted - interim stay in favour of the petitioner and the respondents having realised their mistake had withdrawn the order of reversion issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was consequently promoted to the post of stenographer and for this reason as well the respondents are now stopped from questioning the legality and validity of the petitioner's promotion to the post of stenographer for the benefit of Annual Grade. (g) The petitioner has got a vested right to the grant of Annual Grade Increments on year-wise basis which can be withheld only by way of penalty for good and sufficient reasons or for misconduct in accordance with C.C.A. Rules by way of major penalty, (h) The petitioner is entitled as of right to the grant of Annual Grade Increments yearly and the respondents are not justified in withholding the same without due process of law. 6. In the relief clause (a) the petitioner has sought issuance of appropriate writ order or direction declaring amendment to the recruitment .schedule appended to the regulations brought in force retrospectively w.e.f. 24.5.1990 as unconstitutional. (b) Issuance of direction from this court to the respondents to give benefit of Annual Grade Increments to the petitioner w.e.f. 3.7.1991 and for all subsequent years for the post of stenographer as and when they fall due and also a direction to pay the arrears of Annual Grade Increments with interest @ 18% per annum from due date. 7. Before I deal it with the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner, it shall be appropriate to indicate the position with regard to the power of the respondent - Board to determine, the strength of the staff of various classes, post which vests with the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Regulation 3 of the Regulations deals with the powers of the Board to determine the strength of the staff of various categories of posts for smooth and effective functioning of the corporation which are classified as under Regulation-3 : "Classification & Number of posts (i) The Board of Directors shall from time to time determine the strength of the staff of various classes necessary for carrying out the functions of the corporation. (ii) The posts in the, corporation as substituted vide Notification 26.3.1993 have been classified as follows : Category-III Lower Middle Level Management Superintendent Posts (The category in which petitioner's case falls are at Items 9 & 14 respectively) (1) Office (2) P.A. to, Joint Director (3) Accountant (4) Administrative Asstt. (5) Senior Draftsman (6) Junior Engineer (7) Statistical Asstt. (8) Legal Asstt. (5) Senior Draftsman (6) Junior Engineer (7) Statistical Asstt. (8) Legal Asstt. (9) Stenographer (10) Junior Accountant (It) Care-Taker (12) Senior Assistant (13) Computer Operator (14) Steno-typist (15) .Junior Assistant (16) Telephone Operator The Criteria fixed for filling up posts as referred to above is strictly in conformity with the recruitment rules of the various posts as embodies in the Recruitment Schedule appended to the Regulations. (iv) The Board may in their discretion, effect from time to time, such changes in the number classification and nomenclature of the posts as it deems fit and its decision shall be final and binding." With regard to the above, it has been contended by the petitioner that in exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation 3 as aforesaid, the Board of Directors of the Corporation in their 144th meeting held on 24.5.1990 declared inter alia, eight posts of stenographers as permanent post which were sanctioned by the Head Office of the Corporation which was given vide circulation by the Corporation vide its Circular dated 15.6.1990 (Annexure- 2). The petitioner was promoted against a clear-cut vacancy on the permanent post of stenographer which was duly sanctioned by the Board of Directors. However, it has been contended in this regard that the Managing Director without any authority of law and acting in violation of the Staff Regulations had reduced the strength of the staff vide order dated 1.11.1990 and as a result of which the petitioner was reverted to the post of stenotypist and which was challenged by the petitioner as mentioned above and this court had directed his reinstatement in service with all back wages. 8. The matter was earlier listed before the learned Divisional Bench of this court on 22.3.1994 when the learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that in accordance with Regulation 37 of the Regulations it was enjoined upon the respondents to have obtained prior approval and sanction from the state Government for making amendment in the Regulations and the learned counsel for the petitioner had stated at the bar that no such prior approval and sanction of the state Government had been obtained. The writ petition was consequently admitted for hearing and notice was issued to the respondents and this is how the matter has come up for hearing and final disposal before this court. 9. The writ petition was consequently admitted for hearing and notice was issued to the respondents and this is how the matter has come up for hearing and final disposal before this court. 9. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 it has been contended that respondents-corporation is neither an authority nor 'State' within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. With regard to the contention of the petitioner regarding denial of promotional benefits it has been contended that vide office-order dated 3.7.1990 (Annexure-1.), the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of stenographer on purely adhoc basis. However, in view of the fact that the filled-up post of stenographers had exceeded the strength of stenographers, the petitioner and two other candidates, namely, Soukat Ali and Ashok Kumar Gupta were reverted to the post of stenotypist vide order dated 1.11.1990 (Annexure-3) which is absolutely valid, legal and in accordance with law and thereafter the petitioner vide order dated 12.11.1990 was posted as stenotypist with immediate effect. The averment of the petitioner regarding his eligibility and qualification for further promotion as on 3.7.1990 has been categorically denied by the respondents and as such the impugned action of the Managing Director is not open to challenge. It has been further submitted by the respondents that as a consequence of the order dated 22.2.1991, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of stenographer on purely adhoc basis w.e.f. 3.7.1990 was restored. With regard to the earlier writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5916/1990, it has been contended that same was dismissed by this court as having become infructuous vide its order dated 8.4.1992. 10. As regards the petitioner's claim for the benefit of annual Grade Increments as admissible to him w.e.f. 3.7.1991 on the post of stenographer, it has been contended that the claim for the same is absolutely unfounded. With regard to the recruitment schedule as appended to the Regulations as it stood prior to the amendment was as follows : S.No. Name of post Educational & other qualifications & experience required for direct recruits 1 2 7 6. Stenographer (i) Higher secondary or equivalent. With regard to the recruitment schedule as appended to the Regulations as it stood prior to the amendment was as follows : S.No. Name of post Educational & other qualifications & experience required for direct recruits 1 2 7 6. Stenographer (i) Higher secondary or equivalent. (ii) Speed in shorthand 1.00 w.p.m. & in Typing 40 w.p.m. Period of probation in case of Direct Recruits Method of Recruitment whether by Direct Recruitment or by Promotion or Transfer/Deputation & percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods. 9. 10. one year By direct recruitment or by deputation from State Govt. or Public Sector Undertakings. 11. With regard to the above respondents have contended that in the year 1987 the Corporation had reviewed its administrative and staffing pattern and sent its recommendations to the Bureau of Public Enterprises of the State Government with a request to submit a report with regard to the structure of development pattern of the Corporation and on the basis of the report submitted to it in the year 1988, the said report was adopted and approved in the Boards Meeting dated 27.9.1989 and a subcommittee comprising of four Directors of the Corporation was constituted to undertake a minute study of the report. Since the said committee submitted its report, the same was adopted by the Corporation vide its agenda put up for consideration of the Board wherein with regard to the posts of stenographer, the following agenda was put up for consideration and approval of the Board : "29. Stenographer Sanctioned 8 Filled 4 Recommended by Corporation 3 Recommended by Sub-Committee 8 Final proposals 8 Method of Recruitment 100% by promotion. Reasons 12. "Looking to the volume of work in the Corporation we require 8 stenographers and, therefore, we may agree with the recommendation of the subcommittee and retain 8 posts of stenographer."12-A. The aforesaid agenda forms part of (Annexure R/1 collectively) to the reply to the writ petition of the respondent which was accepted in the Board's meeting dated 24.5.1990 and accepted in totality vide (Annexure R/2) dated 24.5.1990. With regard to the amendment to the schedule appended to the Regulations, it has been contended that the said schedule was amended by the Corporation w.e.f. 24.5.1990 as follows : S.No. Name of post & pay scale Method of recruitment 20. Stenographer 1400-2300 100% by promotion. Minimum . With regard to the amendment to the schedule appended to the Regulations, it has been contended that the said schedule was amended by the Corporation w.e.f. 24.5.1990 as follows : S.No. Name of post & pay scale Method of recruitment 20. Stenographer 1400-2300 100% by promotion. Minimum . Educational Qualification & experience for Direct Recruitment Post from which promotion is to be made Experience for promotion N.A. Stenotypist 3 years as steno typist 13. With regard to the orders dated 7.11.1995 and 28.2.1981 issued by the Department of Personnel laying down the criteria of fixation of pay of Government servants who do not possess the requisite qualification and experience prescribed for promotion and who are appointed on urgent temporary (ad-hoc) basis on higher posts, the benefit of pay fixation under Rule 20-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules for short 'R.S.R.' is not admissible to such cases. At this stage I deem it appropriate to refer to Rule 26-A of the R.S.R. 1951 which reads as under : "26-A. (1) When a Government servant holding a post in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity is promoted to a post in the regular line of promotion in his service, cadre or department, in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing the actual pay drawn by him in the lower post by one increment at the stage at which such pay is drawn. Provided that where a Government servant is, immediately before his promotion to a higher post, drawing pay at the maximum of the time scale of the lower post, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at by increasing the pay drawn at the maximum in the lower post by an amount equivalent to the last increment in the lower post. (2)(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 31, where the pay of a Government servant is fixed under sub-rule (1) above, the next increment shall be granted on the date he would have drawn his increment had he continued in the lower post, provided that where the pay is fixed at the minimum of the time scale and the pay so fixed is more than the pay drawn in the lower post by an amount equal to the amount of the next increment in the lower post plus the amount of first increment in the higher post, the next increment shall be admissible after completion of service for the full incremental period of one year under Rule 31 of Rajasthan Service Rules." 14. The respondents have further contended that the requisite experience of three years as stenotypist was necessary for promotion from the post of stenotypist to that of stenographer only w.e.f. 24.5.1990 and no candidate who did not fulfil the minimum experience of 3 years of service as stenotypist in the respondent Corporation was given the said benefit and since the petitioner did not fulfil the required eligibility criteria as required for the promotional post since he had joined the service of the Corporation w.e.f. 13.12.1989 and hence he had become eligible for promotion to the post of stenographer only after completion of 3 years of service as stenotypist on 13.12.1992 and since the petitioner was still continuing on the post of stenographer on adhoc basis, he became eligible for grant of Annual Grade Increments w.e.f. 10.1.1994 and the same benefit was accordingly extended to him w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and which, in the considered opinion of this court, has been validly granted to the petitioner in accordance with the Regulations. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject with reference to the regulations and the rules as referred to above. 16. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject with reference to the regulations and the rules as referred to above. 16. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-board had no power to carry out the amendment to the recruitment schedule as appended to the Regulations retrospectively, i.e. 24.5.1990 as notified under the office order dated 14.9.1992, 1 am of the view that the said contention of the petitioner is wholly without any basis, untenable and unfounded in view of the fact that the Regulations were introduced by the respondent-corporation for governing its staff conditions in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Central Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 with the previous sanction of the Government of Rajasthan and, therefore, the amendment which were introduced in the said Regulations with retrospective effect, as referred to above, are perfectly just, valid and proper and in accordance with the express authorisation of the State and hence not open to challenge before this court by way of this writ petition. I am further of the view that the petitioner has wholly misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of the Regulation 37, as referred to above, which specifically mandates that the respondent-corporation has got the powers to carry out the amendments to the appendix and/or schedules forming part of the Rules which may be made by the Board with prior approval of the State Government. However, with regard to the amendments to the appendix and/or schedule forming part of the Regulations since the prior approval had been obtained by the Corporation from the State Government and only thereafter they were ratified by the Board of Directors as competent authority having the jurisdiction to carry out the amendments with retrospective effect and hence the same are absolutely valid, legal, proper and constitutional and binding on its employees and not open to challenge before this court. I am further of the view that it is not the case of the petitioner that he has been singled out for hostile discrimination and rather as a matter of policy the respondent-corporation had uniformly and fairly applied the aforesaid amendment to the recruitment schedule to all the employees of the Corporation and hence it is not open to the petitioner to raise this grievance on the ground of discrimination before this court or on any other ground as referred to above. 17. With regard to the benefit of Annual Grade Increments w.e.C 3.7.1991 as claimed by the petitioner, I am of the view that since the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum eligibility requirement of 3 years' experience on the post of stenotypist for the purpose of promotion to that of stenographer, the said benefit cannot be extended to him under Rule 26-A of the R.S.R. as,referred to above and particularly when he was not eligible for the same on the said date, the question of his having been entitled r he benefit of the same, would not arise being not permissible to the petitioner and e Rules. The petitioner has already been given the, said benefit in terms of the oru,.. dated 10.1.1994 which, in my considered view, is perfectly valid, just and in accordance with law.With regard to the eligibility criteria required for promotion from the post of stenotypist to that of stenographer, the Board had adopted the same from the Recruitment Schedule as appended to the Regulations which envisages that the benefit of promotion to the eligible candidate from amongst stenotypist to stenographer shall be given only to those candidates who possess the requisite experience of minimum 3 years as stenotypist as on the relevant date. 18. In pursuance of the directions of the court a clarification was sought from the respondents and the respondents have filed their additional affidavit in which it has been specifically contended that the Board of Directors of the respondent-corporation in its meeting held on 7.8.1992 with regard to the posts in respect of which there was no proposal regarding eligibility (qualification and experience etc.) and agenda note dated 7.8.1992 was put up for consideration of the Board of Directors and at serial No. 24 of the said agenda, the recommendations of the Board were accepted in toto in the Board's meeting dated 7.8.1992. The respondents have further contended in the said additional affidavit that the petitioner had been duly given the benefit of Annual Grade Increments w.c.f. 1.1.1994 in accordance with Regulations and provisions of Rule 26-A of the R.S.R. and thereafter vide order, dated 18.1.1995 benefit of subsequent increments has also been extended to the petitioner vide orders, dated 10.1.1994 and 18.1.1995 respectively which has been accepted by the petitioner without any protest and demur and hence it is not open to the petitioner to raise any grievance by way of this writ petition before this court on any of the grounds as referred to above. 19. As result of the above discussions, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******