Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2361 (RAJ)

Bhunda Ram v. R. S. R. T. C. , Jaipur

2006-07-27

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Since all the aforementioned writ petitions are similar in nature, therefore, they are being decided by this common Judgment . The fact of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4979/1997 are taken for consideration. 2. The controversy in the writ petition is with regard to not giving benefit of jump and not protecting pay. It is also contended that the benefit of Selection Grade has not been given after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Conductor on 19.01.1985 in the pay scale of Rs. 800-15-1000-20-1200-25-1400-30-1640-40-1680 and the same was revised in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-25-1400-40-1680 on 01.09.1988. 4. On 011.1988, the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC and in the conditions of this Office Order dated 011.1988, it was stipulated that the petitioner’s services would be controlled by the standing order and the petitioner’s service and salary will be protected and it will not be reduced. In support of his submissions, the petitioner referred condition No. 6 of the order dated 011.1988. The petitioner further submits that in view of the option of old pay scale since the petitioner has not been confirmed on the post of LDC, as such the pay scale of 880-1640 was required to be given to the petitioner and according to this pay scale, all the increments were required to be given to the petitioner after giving benefit of jumps. He also referred a question, which was put in the Lekhavigya, which is reproduced hereunder :- 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present controversy has been resolved by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4319/1995 Rakesh Kumar Pathak vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Anr., decided on 21.01.1997. 6. It is informed by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Judgment referred by the petitioner has been reversed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 1409/97, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rakesh Kumar Verma, decided on 14.05.1998. The respondents referred Condition No. 7 of the Officer Order dated 011.1988 (Annexure-1) which reads as under:- 7. The petitioner also referred condition No. 6 of Annexure-1, which is reproduced hereunder:- 8. The respondents referred Condition No. 7 of the Officer Order dated 011.1988 (Annexure-1) which reads as under:- 7. The petitioner also referred condition No. 6 of Annexure-1, which is reproduced hereunder:- 8. After referring Condition No. 7, the respondents also referred Officer Order dated 27.04.1993, issued by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, by which the benefit of Selection Grade Clause 3 of this Officer Order dated 27.04.1993, reads as under:-“3. The Service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Regulations : Provided that, if an employee subsequent to his first appointment to a post in a cadre/service, as a result of direct recruitment, is appointed to some other post in the same cadre or any other cadre, service from the date of later appointment shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of selection grade : Provided further, that if an employee subsequent to his first appointment to a post in a cadre/service, in accordance with provisions contained in the relevant service Regulations is promoted to a post in some other cadre, service from the date of such promotion shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of the Selection Grade: Provided further, that in the case of an employee who is declared surplus and absorbed against a new post, the service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which his immediately junior employee completed the period of service or on completion of service from the date of appointment to the post held before absorption whichever is later.” 9. Referring the Officer Order Annexure-1, the respondents submits that since the petitioner given his option for LDC and he was given appointment on the post of LDC but the typing test has not been passed by the petitioner as the petitioner has not even appeared for typing test. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to pass type test and after passing type test in the year 1995, the petitioner was given appointment as LDC in substantive capacity w.e.f. 18.06.1995. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to pass type test and after passing type test in the year 1995, the petitioner was given appointment as LDC in substantive capacity w.e.f. 18.06.1995. The respondents further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of jump as the cadre has been changed and lien came to end on the post of Conductor and further submits that after completion of 9 years of service on the post of LDC, benefit of Selection Grade has already been given to the petitioner. With regard to pay protection, it is also stated that pay of the petitioner already protected. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the Circulars/Judgment s referred by the parties. So far as benefit of jump is concerned, I have carefully perused question No. 105 put up in the Lekhavigya and answer that the benefit of jump can also be given prior to confirmation on the post. As the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor and he was given appointment on the post of LDC, lien on the post of Conductor came to as end. In view of this fact, as per the answer given by the Lekhavigya, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of jump. 10. Now with regard to pay fixation, as the respondents have stated at bar that pay of the petitioner has been protected and since the petitioner has not been able to make out any case to show that his pay is not protected, thus, the relief with regard to pay protection, has already been granted to the petitioner, no writ, order or direction is required to be issued. 11. Now the question remains only with regard to benefit of Selection Grade. As per the Officer Order dated 27.04.1993, the services of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Regulations. The petitioner’s fixation on the post of LDC has been made on 18.06.1995 and admittedly the benefit of Selection Grade is also given to the petitioner after completion of 9 years of service. The petitioner’s fixation on the post of LDC has been made on 18.06.1995 and admittedly the benefit of Selection Grade is also given to the petitioner after completion of 9 years of service. Thus, the relief claimed by the petitioner that benefit of Selection Grade be given from the date of initial appointment on the post of Conductor, cannot be considered as per Clause 3 of the Officer Order dated 27.04.1993. 12. As the Judgment referred by the petitioner in support of his submissions, has been reversed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ramesh Kumar Verma, (Supra), therefore, the observations made by the learned Single Judge cannot be taken into consideration. 13. In view of the observations made hereinabove, all the writ petitions fail being devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed.