Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 536 (RAJ)

Kaushal Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan

2004-04-08

K.S.RATHORE

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - Present petition is filed for seeking writ, order or direction praying the following reliefs: (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to implement the Report of the Ben Commission for the Aeromodelling instructors in the State of Rajasthan. (ii) By further appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to give pay scale to the Aeromodelling Instructors employed in the State of Rajasthan equal to the Aeromodelling instructors employed in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Manipur. (iii) By further appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to give higher pay scale to the petitioners/Aeromodelling Instructors in the State of Rajasthan. (iv) The directions may be further issued to get further promotion avenues for the Aeromodelling Instructors employed in the State of Rajasthan. (v) That the direction may be issued to give the status of gazetted officer the Aeromodelling Instructors in the State of Rajasthan. (vi) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be issued in favour of the petitioners. (vii) Costs of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners by way of this joint writ petition submits that they are holding the post of Aeromodelling Instructors in the National Cadet Corps and are employees of the State of Rajasthan. 3. He further averred in the writ petition that Aeromodelling Instructors perform identical duties all over the country and there is absolutely no difference in the nature of duties assigned to Aeromodelling Instructors whether he is in one State or other State. The Aeromodelling Instructor of Rajasthan perform the same duties, which is being performed by Aeromodelling Instructor of other States. 4. The Aeromodelling Instructors are appointed by the State and their salary is also being paid by the State. For the appointment on the post of the Aeromodelling Instructor essential qualification prescribed by the Union of India and the duty assigned to the Aeromodelling Instructors also on all India basis. 5. The Aeromodelling Instructor in the State of Rajasthan has been recruited in the subordinate services whereas in many other states it is a state level service, which has been given gazetted rank. 6. 5. The Aeromodelling Instructor in the State of Rajasthan has been recruited in the subordinate services whereas in many other states it is a state level service, which has been given gazetted rank. 6. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the denial of wages equal to their counterparts in other States and further by denial of promotional avenues and gazetted rank. prefer this writ petition on the grounds that as the duty discharged by the petitioners are identical to the duties discharged by the similarly situated persons in other states and it is further submitted that the State of Rajasthan appointed a Commissioner under the Chairmanship of former Chief Justice, Shri B.P. Beri for recommending the pay scale to different categories of the employees in the State of Rajasthan and the Commission's recommendation was accepted by the State. 7. The Commission in its report also examined the pay scale of 1 Aeromodelling Instructors of other States and after reaching to the conclusion that the pay scale of Aeromodelling Instructors is less pursuant to the pay scale of Aeromodelling instructors employees in other States and made its recommendations for giving higher pay scale. 8. The Director General of N.C.C., Rajasthan also made its recommendation for higher pay scale in January 1992 and wrote a letter to the Dy. Secretary Finance (Rules), Government of Rajasthan for giving higher pay scale to the Aeromodelling instructors in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioners also raised the grievance on the stagnation as the promotional avenues are provided and the petitioners are entitled to get the promotion in the pay scale of Rs.1810-3230/-. 9. Per contra learned counsel for the State does not dispute this fact that the petitioners are the employees of State of Rajasthan and their service conditions are governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules. With 15 regard to the stagnation it was given out by learned counsel for the respondents that they will granted selection grade on completion of 9, and 27 years of service 10. Recommendations of Beri Commission are only the recommendations to the State Government. It is further submitted that the Secretary Committee was appointed by the State Government for examining the report of the Beri Commission. Recommendations of Beri Commission are only the recommendations to the State Government. It is further submitted that the Secretary Committee was appointed by the State Government for examining the report of the Beri Commission. The Secretary Committee made certain recommendations to the State Government with regard to the various pay scales to various posts including that of Aeromodelling Instructors in the State Government, thereafter, implemented the recommendations given by 25 the Secretary Committee 11. It is also emphatically dried that the State of Rajasthan has taken any decision that the scale to its employees would be given identical to the pay scale of the employees under Union Territory. However, the State Government is giving the promotion in the State for grant of selection grade, 30 thus, there is no question of any hostile discrimination. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that regarding the status of the post of AMI being gazetted in Andhra Pradesh, it is submitted that each State has its own set up and establishment so far as bureaucracy is concerned and it does not mean that particular post in anyother State is declared gazetted post, other States should also declare that post as gazetted post. 13. Heard rival submissions for the respective parties and carefully perused all the contents of the writ petition as well as the reply submitted and also perused the judgments referred by the parties. 14. Parties are not in dispute that the petitioners are Government servants and their service conditions are regulated by Subordinate Service Rules. As the petitioners are able to make out his case that the duty discharged by the petitioners are identical in nature as discharged by other persons appointed in various States, it is no doubt that the appointment is 45 made by the State but under the instructions issued by the Union of India and the salary are paid by the State and services are regulated by the State rules. 15. Without entering into the controversy whether the petitioners are entitled to ask for identical treatment as were given in the different States or so given by the Union of India. 15. Without entering into the controversy whether the petitioners are entitled to ask for identical treatment as were given in the different States or so given by the Union of India. Since the State has accepted the recommendations of the Beri Commission and in its reply the State also agreed that the Ben Commission's recommendations is examined by the Secretaries Committee and the Secretaries Committee after examining the Berl Commission report has given the suggestions and the same has been implemented. But the respondents failed to submit the pay scale of A.M.I. recommended by the Ben Commission and approved by the Secretaries Committee and they also do not disclose this fact that under the Ben Commission's recommendation subsequently approved by the Secretaries' Committee what was the existing pay and what is the revised pay scale. 16. So far as the stagnation is concerned, it is stated by the to respondents that me benefit of selection scale after completion of service of 9, 18 and 27 years is given to the petitioners. 17. Be that as it may. As it is submitted that the respondents have implemented the recommendations of Beri Commission as suggested by the Secretaries' Committee, the petitioners are entitled to get the pay scale in - 15 accordance with the recommendations of the Beni Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purushottam Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 1973 SC 1088 and Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home reported in AIR 1988 SC 1033 has held non-implementation of the report of Second pay Commission in respect of certain posts if violative of Articles 14 & 16. 18. Herein the instant case also the respondents are not truly complied with the recommendations made by the Ben Commission and approved by the Secretaries Committee. 19. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed and the respondents are directed to comply with the recommendations of Beri Commission as approved by the Secretaries Committee within a period of two months.Writ Petition Allowed. *******