Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 525 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Narendra Singh

2005-02-16

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The instant petition has been filed by the State Government against the order dated 28.5.2003 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 353/2002 (Narendra Singh vs. Chief Conservator of Forest & Ors.) 2. Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated. 112.1978 (Annex. P/1) non-petitioner appellant Narendra Singh Udawat was initially appointed on the post of LDC purely on temporary and adhoc basis for the period of three months vide order dated 112.1978. The services of the non-petitioner were regularized, after passing Departmental Examination w.e.f. 26.4.1983 under Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1957. 3. The State Government promulgated notification dated 21.1992 (Annex. 4). In pursuance of said notification, benefit of selection grade was extended to the non-petitioner-appellant. The selection grade was given to the petitioner from the date of initial appointment on the post of LDC, but later on the benefit extended to the non-petitioner-appellant was withdrawn vide order dated 29.2002 on the ground that the non-petitioner passed the Departmental Examination in pursuance of the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1951). Accordingly the benefit which was extended to the non-petitioner was later on withdrawn in pursuance of the impugned order dated 29.2002 (Annex.P/5). 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.5.2003 (Annex. P/6) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, the non-petitioner No. 1 N.S. Udawat preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal on 211.2002 which was registered as Appeal No. 353/2002 (N.S. Udawat vs. Chief Conservator of Forest & Ors.) 5. The appeal of the non-petitioner appellant, after hearing both the parties, was allowed and impugned order dated 29.2002 (Annex. P/5) was quashed and it was held that the non-petitioner appellant is entitled to get the benefit of selection grade w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.5.2003 (Annex. P/6) passed by the learned Tribunal, the State Government preferred the instant petition. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The main contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of LDC on temporary basis. In pursuance of the provisions of Rules of 1951, the matter of the petitioner was regularised, after passing the Departmental Examination which was conducted way back on 26.4.1983. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The main contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of LDC on temporary basis. In pursuance of the provisions of Rules of 1951, the matter of the petitioner was regularised, after passing the Departmental Examination which was conducted way back on 26.4.1983. Therefore, as per Notification issued regarding Selection Grade dated 21.1992 (Annex. P/4), petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Selection Grade with effect from the date of regularisation, rather than the date of initial appointment. 9. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner N.S. Udawat, contended that it is not disputed that petitioner was initially temporarily appointed on ad hoc basis. The said appointment was regular appointment in pursuance of Rules of 1951 and he was regularly discharging his duties since 112.1978 from the date of initial appointment till he was regularised in service after passing the Departmental Examination. Thus, the petitioner, who is making interpretation for grant of Selection grade to the non-petitioner, is illegal and is not in accordance with law, but the non-petitioner is entitled to get the benefit from the date of initial appointment, instead the date of regularisation of service, after passing Departmental Examination on 26.4.1983. In this view of the matter, the action, which is being taken by the petitioner Department, is not according to law any recovery which is being made, is not justifiable and the non-petitioner is entitled to get the benefit from the date of initial appointment, rather than from the date of passing the Departmental Examination. 10. In support of his arguments, he has referred to the Larger Bench decision reported in DNJ 2004 (3) page 1449 (State of Rajasthan vs. Farooq Ahmed), decided on 29.01.2005. Learned Counsel submitted that this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid Judgment . The interpretation has been made that for the purpose of Selection Grade, the benefit should be extended from the date of initial appointment, rather than from the date of regularisation in service. This interpretation is very well considered in the decision of the Larger Bench, while making interpretation of Service Rules, as well as provisions mentioned in the Notification of the Government dated 21.1992 (Annex. P/4). This interpretation is very well considered in the decision of the Larger Bench, while making interpretation of Service Rules, as well as provisions mentioned in the Notification of the Government dated 21.1992 (Annex. P/4). The Larger Bench finally decided that person who is appointed, in pursuance to the provisions of Service Rules either on temporary basis or ad hoc basis, and later on his service has been regularised after passing the Departmental Examination or by any other reasons as per law, he is entitled to get the benefit as regular employee for the aforesaid purpose from the date of initial appointment, rather than from the date of regularisation. On this very interpretation this controversy has been set at rest by the decision of the Larger Bench. 11. Be that as it may, it is admitted position that the non-petitioner N.S. Udawat is entitled to get the Selection Grade from the date of his initial appointment, rather than from the date of regularisation after passing the Departmental Examination. 12. In this view of the matter, the order dated 29.2002 quashed by the Tribunal is justified. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal in this regard. 13. The net out-come of the aforesaid discussion is that the instant petition lacks merits, it has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.