Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2356 (RAJ)

Gopal Lal Rathore v. R. S. E. B.

2007-12-10

P.B.MAJMUDAR

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in withdrawing the benefit of III selection grade. The petitioner was offered the benefit of III selection grade on the post of Section Officer, but he has refused to accept the same, therefore, benefit of III selection grade was withdrawn on the aforesaid ground. 2. It is submitted that earlier to this writ petition, the petitioner has also filed a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1723/1999 wherein this Court while disposing of the writ petition has directed the competent authority to deal with his representation and pass appropriate orders on the same expeditiously. After disposing of the said representation, the petitioner has again filed this writ petition. In response to the notice of this Court, affidavit in reply has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the benefit of III selection grade has been withdrawn as the petitioner has refused to accept the same. In this behalf, it has been averred in the reply that the promotion was given to the petitioner vide order dated 29.5.1998 and by virtue of the said order, he was promoted to the post of Section Officer and posted in the office of the Superintendent Engineer (O&M) RSEB, Jhalawar. However, initially the petitioner has failed to join his services on the promoted post and later on when he was given a reminder vide letter dated 21.8.1998, then the petitioner had submitted an application with an intention to forego the promotion. It is required to be noted that the benefit of selection grade is given when there is no avenue of promotion. In this behalf in paras 5 & 6 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated as under : "5. That the contents of para No. 5 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner it has been stated. Rather the facts so mentioned in this para of the writ petition are suppressing in as much as that when the order of promotion was passed and the petitioner was posted in the office of Superintendent Engineer, Jhalawar, then it was necessary for him to join his services within the period which was granted for joining of the post on promotion and transfer. However, the petitioner kept silence even after receipt of the order and thus only the answering respondents had to send a reminder to the petitioner on 21.8.98 and it was only on receipt of the said letter that the petitioner has given a letter for foregoing the promotion. It is, however, incorrect to say that the petitioner was not relieved for joining his post at Jhalawar. The bare perusal of the letter dated 21.8.98 clearly shows that the said letter had to be written by the answering respondents in the circumstances that he had not joined the post and thus the letter was written by the Competent Authority to find out as to why the petitioner has not joined his post. It was thereafter only that the petitioner had shown his unwillingness to join on the post of promotion. 6. That the contents of para No. 6 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner it has been stated. It may be submitted that there exists difference between the two pay scales, i.e. the pay scale granted on the grant of 3rd selection scale and on the promotion to the higher post. The selection scale is granted to the employees to remove the stagnation in their service and not otherwise. Rather it may be submitted that the grant of selection scale is nothing but a substitute of timely promotion in the service career of an employee. Thus, if an employee has been granted selection scale as a substitute of non-grant of promotion then, in an eventuality of granting promotion at a later date whereupon he shows his inability to shoulder the responsibility of the higher post then he is bound to forego all the benefits which otherwise were granted by virtue of 3rd selection scale in as much as one cannot refuse to shoulder the responsibility of the higher post on which he has been promoted even after receipt of the selection grade in the circumstances already explained hereinabove. Thus merely for the reason that there was difference in the pay scales on grant of selection scale and promotion, it cannot be said that a different rule can be applied in the matter and in such circumstances the answering respondents had rightly passed the order as a consequence of the aforesaid fact. 3. Thus merely for the reason that there was difference in the pay scales on grant of selection scale and promotion, it cannot be said that a different rule can be applied in the matter and in such circumstances the answering respondents had rightly passed the order as a consequence of the aforesaid fact. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was given the benefit of selection grade continuously for six years. It is required to be noted that earlier the petitioner has filed a writ petition being No. 1723/1999, which was disposed of by learned Single Judge and as per direction of learned Single Judge, his representation was considered. It cannot be said that the order in question is penal in any manner as since the petitioner has not accepted the promotion, from that time onwards the department was justified in not continuing the benefit of selection grade. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not accepted the promotion and under these circumstances, the department was justified in withholding the benefit of selection grade. The petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to benefit of selection grade thereafter after refusing the promotion. Under these circumstances, I do not find any substance in this writ petition. No other point was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Notices discharges. No order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******