Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 492 (JK)

Ajay Gupta v. State Of J&K

2010-09-16

J.P.Singh

body2010
1. The petitioners, ten in number, were selected as Stock Assistants by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board against available vacancies in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government, in the year 2002. 2. Pursuant to the directions of the Administrative Department, they were ordered to undergo one year’s Stock Assistant Training Course in the Stock Assistant Training School, Beli Charana, Jammu, on payment of Stipend, under rules, vide Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jammu’s Order dated 05.09.2002. 3. After the completion of training, they were formally appointed as Stock Assistants in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 vide Directorate of Animal Husbandry Department, Jammu’s Order of 07.10.2003. 4. The grievance projected by them in the Writ Petition is that after having accepted the recommendations in respect of their selection by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board, the State-respondents were under a statutory obligation to grant them the minimum of the Time Scale admissible under rule 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, with effect from the date they were deputed for training, which they had failed to discharge, despite several Representations made in this behalf by the petitioners seeking grant of the minimum of the Time Scale. 5. The petitioners’ learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been treated by the State-respondents differently, without any justification, when persons situated similarly, were allowed the benefits admissible to them under rules during the period of their training after their selection as Stock Assistants. Reference in this context is made to Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jammu’s Communication No.E-872/1592-1643 dated 17.06.2008, to support the petitioners’ plea. 6. Contesting the petitioners’ Claim, the State-respondents say that the petitioners became entitled to the pay scale which the post of Stock Assistants carried, with effect from 07.10.2003, when they became the members of the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service and not from any date anterior thereto. Their claim to the pay scale of 3050-4590 with effect from the date they were deputed for training is thus stated untenable. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the rules governing the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, hereinafter to be referred as, `rules’, for short. 8. Rule 6 of the rules provides Probation or Trial for two years, for the persons, appointed to the Service. 9. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the rules governing the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, hereinafter to be referred as, `rules’, for short. 8. Rule 6 of the rules provides Probation or Trial for two years, for the persons, appointed to the Service. 9. In terms of Rule 6(4), a candidate appointed to the Service, by direct recruitment, is allowed the minimum of the time scale during the first year and at the second stage of that scale during the remaining period of Probation/Trial. Where the period of Probation/Trial is extended beyond two years for reasons not directly attributable to the probationer, he is to be allowed to draw the second and third increment after the expiry of second and third year of Probation/Trial. 10. Rule 7 of the rules requires the persons, appointed to the Service, by direct recruitment, to undergo, such training from time to time during the course of service, and pass during the period of probation or trial, such departmental examination as the Government may prescribe. 11. Perusal of the orders issued by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jammu indicates that the petitioners were not formally appointed to the Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service after their selection as Stock Assistants and were instead sent to undergo one year’s Stock Assistant Training Course on payment of Stipend under rules. 12. The course followed by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry Department, Jammu, on accepting the recommendations of the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board, in respect of the person selected against the available vacancies of Stock Assistants, paying them only Stipend and not the minimum of the Time Scale of the post, was, thus, not in line with the one contemplated by the provision of the rules, in terms whereof, the selected persons had to be sent for training or kept on probation, after their formal appointment as such, to the Service, and paid in terms of rule 6 (4) of the rules. 13. 13. The State-respondents have thus acted illegally in deputing the petitioners for training on payment of Stipend rather than issuing requisite orders for their entry into the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service, on their selection against the available vacancies thereby depriving them of their service rights and pecuniary benefits which had become available to them under the rules, on the State-respondents’ accepting the recommendations of the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board. 14. I do not find merit in the learned State counsel’s plea that the petitioners having been appointed to the service, after the completion of their training, were not entitled to the pay scale admissible to the post of Stock Assistant, during the period of their Probation, in that, on their accepting the recommendations of the Board, the State-respondents were under a statutory obligation to issue orders for petitioners’ entry into the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service, in terms of the rules governing the Service. The omission of the State-respondents to do the needful does not, in my opinion, deprive the petitioners of their right to entry into service, which had become available to them when while accepting the recommendations of the Board, the State Government deputed them to undergo training. 15. Even otherwise, as indicated by Director, Animal Husbandry’s order dated 17.06.2008, the State Government is found permitting the entry into service of those selected as Stock Assistants, before deputing them to undergo requisite training, and paying them the minimum of the time scale carried by the post. 16. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the minimum of the time scale during the period of their training, and adopt different yard stick regarding entry of persons to the same Service. 17. The petitioners have thus succeeded in establishing that they became the members of the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service when, on acceptance of the recommendations of the Services Selection Board, they were deputed by the State Government to undergo one year’s Stock Assistant training Course in the Stock Assistant Training School, Beli Charana, Jammu. They have further established their entitlement to the salary in terms of rule 6 (4) of the rules, during the period of their probation. 18. They have further established their entitlement to the salary in terms of rule 6 (4) of the rules, during the period of their probation. 18. This Petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ case for their appointment to the service with effect from the date they were sent for training, and payment of salary in terms of rule 6 (4) of the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, for passing appropriate orders in this regard, under rules, within a period of three months.