Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1198 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shri Sunder Lal Paliwal

2003-08-27

PRAKASH TATIA, RAJESH BALIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Addl. Advocate General and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This review application has been filed by the State to recall the order dated 17.10.2002 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writs) No. 141/2002. 3. The respondents have filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur as Appeal No. 777/2000 on 25.5.2000. In the said appeal the incumbent claimed relief of the grant of selection grades on completion on 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service respectively from the date of their first appointment. The appeal of the respondent was decided with a group of other appeal on 14.9.2001 raising the same issue with the common decision. 4. All the appellants before the Tribunal were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in 1985 on different dates under the Collector, Udaipur. The appointments were made on the basis of list of candidates made available to the Collector by Employment Exchange, Udaipur and Social Welfare Department, Udaipur after the candidates have passed typing test and had successfully faced the interviews before the appointments. Their appointments were made against the existing vacant posts of Lower Division Clerks. However, the appointment were made as the daily rated workers at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day. Ostensibly for the reason that such vacant posts may be used in future for absorbing some surplus employees. 5. Faced with the situation that notwithstanding full functions of Lower Division Clerk, these incumbents were not paid the remuneration of the post in the pay scale applicable to the post were paid daily wages, a writ petition was filed before this Court which was decided by Division Bench on 11.5.1988. The Court found that the appellants who have been appointed after regular process of selection and discharging the functions of the regular posts of Lower Division Clerks, it is not just and equitable that they be paid Rs. 15/- per day. The action was found to be contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Court directed that the petitioners (Lower Division Clerks) be fixed in the regular pay scale of L.D.C. w.e.f. the date the writ petition was filed in the Court i.e. 13.11.1987. This direction was given effect to. 6. Therafter the Collector, Udaipur vide his order dated 22.1.1990 fixed the salary of the appellants before the Tribunal at Rs. The Court directed that the petitioners (Lower Division Clerks) be fixed in the regular pay scale of L.D.C. w.e.f. the date the writ petition was filed in the Court i.e. 13.11.1987. This direction was given effect to. 6. Therafter the Collector, Udaipur vide his order dated 22.1.1990 fixed the salary of the appellants before the Tribunal at Rs. 950/- p.m., in the revised pay scale which became effective on 1.9.1988 and dearness allowance was also paid on that basis. Thereafter the appellants appeared in the proficiency test and on being successful, their services were regularised. 7. The grievance raised in the instant before the Tribunal is that the appellants ought to have been given the benefit of selection grade by computing period of 9 years from the date they were first appointed in the year 1985. For this relief he relied on the Government order dated 25.1.1992. In reply to the aforesaid claim of the appellants, the State Government contended that since their services were regularised from 15.12.1992, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of circular dated 25.1.1992 by computing their service w.e.f. 15.12.1992. 8. The Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court in Pushplata Thada and 41 others v. State and others, 2001(2) WLC (Raj.) 560 : 2002(2) SCT 635 (Raj.) allowed the appeals including that of the respondent No. 1 by directing that the period of 9 years shall be computed from 13.8.1987, the date from which they were fixed in regular pay scale in pursuance of the directions of this Court finding that their continuance as a daily rated workman was not justified. 9. In Pushplata Thada's case after noticing the rival contentions on behalf of the petitioners as well as of the State which were in line with the contentions raised in these matters, and referring the number of decisions, expressed its agreement with the opinion of the learned Single Judge in case of Smt. Snehlata Mathur v. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2322/1993 decided on 14.5.1999) which has been upheld by the Division Bench and S.L.P. against which has been dismissed and also expressed its agreement with the view expressed in case of Habbibur Rehman v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2079/1987). & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2322/1993 decided on 14.5.1999) which has been upheld by the Division Bench and S.L.P. against which has been dismissed and also expressed its agreement with the view expressed in case of Habbibur Rehman v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2079/1987). With this conclusion, the orders recalling the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9 years with effect from the initial date of appointment was quashed and consequently recoveries of amount from incumbent were restrained and amount, if any, recovered, was ordered to be refunded. 10. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has categorically rejected the contentions of State that completion of requisite period of service should be computed with effect from the date when they were put in regular scale of trained teacher after they had put in 10 years service as untrained teacher or passed regular qualification of teacher training certificate or B.Ed. 11. Like view was expressed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Vishnu Prasad Mathur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 471/2000 decided on 19.4.2001). 12. The petitioner before this Court in Vishnu Prasad's case was appointed on temporary basis under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Service Rules and the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18, 27 years with effect from the date of first appointment was sought to be denied only on the ground that the appointment was on temporary basis. The Court found that even temporary appointment is the appointment under the Rules and, therefore, for the purpose of having benefit of Government decision dated 5.1.1992 the distinction between the temporary appointment and regular appointment cannot be sustained. 13. Another judgment passed in Group of petitions S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4269/2002, Gordhan Prasad Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. and others petitions, the learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the contention of the petitioners' computing the services of 9, 18 and 27 years from the date of initial appointment irrespective of nature of the appointment. 14. Yet another bench decision of this court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. and others petitions, the learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the contention of the petitioners' computing the services of 9, 18 and 27 years from the date of initial appointment irrespective of nature of the appointment. 14. Yet another bench decision of this court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Sohan Lal and Anr., D.B. Special Appeal No. 1652/2002 decided on 14th May, 2002 it has been held that for the grant of scales under Notification dated 25.1.1992 entire service period is to be counted, including the services rendered on ad hoc and temporary basis as per the ratio laid down in Pupshlata Thada and 41 others v. State and others (2001(2) WLC (Raj.) 560). We may notice that the S.L.P. filed against the decision taken in Pushplata Thada's case as well as in the State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances without referring in details of all these decisions of this Court, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the State against the order of the Tribunal by referring to the decisions in Pushplata Thada's case. On appeal in which the direct question involved was whether the case of the respondent No. 1 is governed by the principle communicated in Pushplata Thada's case was an issue and considering that question the Division Bench has decided that it seems that there is no ground to take a different view than taken by the learned Single Judge. The controversy involved in this case is fully covered by the decisions of the Pushplata Thada's case. 16. In order to sustain the review application, the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association and another, (2000) 8 SCC 4 : 2000(4) SCT 664 (SC). 17. We are of the opinion that the decisions rendered by this Court on various occasions are founded on the scheme of extending benefit of grant of selection to its employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years are founded on executive instructions issued on 25.1.1992 and which have been interpreted time and again by this court as aforesaid. 17. We are of the opinion that the decisions rendered by this Court on various occasions are founded on the scheme of extending benefit of grant of selection to its employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years are founded on executive instructions issued on 25.1.1992 and which have been interpreted time and again by this court as aforesaid. The issue before the Supreme Court arose out of Haryana Service of Engineer Class to Public Irrigation Branch, 1970 which had different requisite for grant of selection scale Rules envisage that the selection scale is to be granted after prescribed period of 'regular service'. It is in interpreting those Rules, the Supreme Court found that for grant of selection scale the service rendered prior to regular recruitment under the Service Rules cannot be counted. 18. Apart from the aforesaid, we find that in most of the cases the orders have already been implemented by the State Government. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the cases of similarly situated persons namely Ashok Kumar Jatav, Shri Brij Bhushan Mathur, Shri Satyender Kumar Ajmera and Shri Prem Shankar Odichya, whose like appeals have been allowed on 16.4.20001, had been implemented by the State without challenging the said orders. 19. The Additional Advocate General has tried to make distinctions between its action to accept Phushplata Thada decision and other cases on the ground that the ratio of Pushplata Thada's case is applicable to teachers only and has convened that the same principle cannot be extended to other categories of employees of the State. 20. This distinction in our opinion does not exist in the circular, on the basis of which alone the benefit of grant of selection scale is extended to stagnated employees in whatever Department they are. 21. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that any error much less any error apparent on the face of record appears in the judgment under consideration so as to consider it a fit case for reviewing the case by recalling the order passed by the Division Bench.Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. No orders as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******