Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1487 (RAJ)

Vadan Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-18

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-Heard at admission stage. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 110.2002 (Annexure 4) may kindly be modified and it may be ordered that the petitioner is entitled to get first and second selection grades by counting her services w.e.f. 05.04.1984 on which date she was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade II (Senior Teacher) with all consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III vide order dated 10.11.1976 (Annexure 1). 4. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.03.1984, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade II. The petitioner joined on the post of Teacher Grade II on 05.04.1984. 5. It has been averred by the petitioner that vide circular dated 25.01.1992, the State Government ordered for grant of three selections grades to its employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. 6. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade II on 05.04.1984 (date of joining), she completed 9 years of service on the said post on 05.04.1993. As soon as she completed 9 years of service on 05.04.1993, she became entitled for grant of first selection grade. The petitioner again completed next 9 years (total 18 years) on the post of Teacher Grade II on 05.04.2002 and as such on that day, the petitioner became entitled to get second selection grade. Accordingly, on 05.04.1993 the petitioner should have been granted first selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500/-and on 05.04.2002, the petitioner should have been granted salary in the pay scale of Rs. 7,500/-. 7. The further case of the petitioner is that earlier also, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Honble Court for grant of selection grade which was allowed in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Pushplata Thada. In pursuance of that the petitioner was granted selection grade w.e.f. 111.1994 by counting her services from 111.1976. This selection grade was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 110.2002 (Annexure 4). 8. In pursuance of that the petitioner was granted selection grade w.e.f. 111.1994 by counting her services from 111.1976. This selection grade was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 110.2002 (Annexure 4). 8. The further case of the petitioner is that though the date of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Senior Teacher (Teacher Grade II) has been mentioned as 05.04.1984, but she was granted selection grade by counting services on the post of Teacher Grade III. As a matter of fact, as per Proviso (2) of Clause (3) of the Circular dated 25.01.1992, the petitioner should have been granted selection grade by counting services on a particular post and in the case of the petitioner, the petitioners services should have been counted on the post of Teacher Grade II. Accordingly, the petitioner should have been granted first selection grade on 05.04.1993 as she was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade II on 05.04.1984 and second selection grade on 05.04.2002. The selection grade granted vide order dated 110.2002 by counting her 18 years service w.e.f. 111.1976 in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- (presently Rs. 6,500-10,500/-) is not correct. 9. It has also been averred in the writ petition that when the petitioner was not granted the selection grades accrued to her, she sent a notice for demand of justice on 12.04.2005. However, no heed was paid to the request of the petitioner. 10. The crux of the argument of the petitioner is that she was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade II (Senior Teacher) on 05.04.1984. As per Circular dated 25.01.1992, the services should have been counted from 05.04.1984 and she should have been granted first selection on 05.04.1993 and accordingly second selection grade on 05.04.2002 on completion of next 9 years of service on this particular post. But vide order dated 110.2002, the petitioner was granted selection grade by counting her services w.e.f. 111.1976 i.e., date of her initial appointment. Even if the petitioners services are counted from 111.1976, then too she had completed 27 years of service on 111.2003 and accordingly she should have been granted third selection grades on 111.2003. 11. But vide order dated 110.2002, the petitioner was granted selection grade by counting her services w.e.f. 111.1976 i.e., date of her initial appointment. Even if the petitioners services are counted from 111.1976, then too she had completed 27 years of service on 111.2003 and accordingly she should have been granted third selection grades on 111.2003. 11. During the course of arguments, it has been requested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 has not given any reply to the notice for demand of justice and has not passed any speaking and reasoned order and hence, the respondent No. 1 be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of selection grade. Since, the request of the petitioner is only for consideration of the representation, therefore, the instant petition is disposed of at this stage by giving a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law only. Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent No. 1 shall consider and decide the same either way in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order may be passed strictly in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.