Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 394 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Prem Devi

2011-02-22

ARUN MISHRA, RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on the question of admission.These appeals have been preferred assailing the common order passed by Single Bench in writ petitions preferred by respondents-employees for the benefit of time bound advancement of pay scale in terms of circular dated 25.1.1992 issued by the State Government on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The benefit has been ordered to be given with effect from the date of which the permanent status was conferred upon the employee in the work charge establishment. Aggrieved thereby, the instant appeals have been preferred. 2. The respondents-employees approached the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") praying for the benefit of the aforesaid circular dated 25.1.1992 of time bound advancement of pay scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. It is not in dispute that they were earlier working in the work charge establishment and while working in work charge establishment permanent status was conferred upon them with effect from completion of 10 years of service. Thereafter, separate orders were passed and they were taken in regular cadre from the work charge cadre. 3. Respondent Bhagwati Prasad was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.8.1972 vide order No. WC/8041-68 dated 6.9.1972 as per the statement made in the return filed by the appellant-State. Respondent Mangilal was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.8.1972 vide order dated 6.9.1982 (Annex. I to the petition). Respondent Prem Devi as per the averment made in the petition was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1971 vide order No. 9808 dated 25.9.1972 passed by Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Ajmer. This fact is not controverted in the return filed by State, respondent Mahaveer Prasad and 26 others (Civil Special No. 011387/2009) were taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.9.1972 vide order dated 1.12.1976. Respondent Natwar Singh was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.2.1979 vide order dated 3.8.1970. Respondent Jagdish and 8 others were taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1971 vide order dated 3.8.1970. Respondent Jagdish and 8 others were taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1971 vide order dated 10.8.1972. Respondent Tarachand was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.9.1972. Respondent joginder Singh was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.2.1979 vide order dated 24.8.1979. Respondent Mahaveer Prasad was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 9.8.1977 vide order dated 9.8.1977.Thus, it is apparent that all the incumbents were taken in the regular establishment. Respondent Tarachand was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.9.1972. Respondent joginder Singh was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 1.2.1979 vide order dated 24.8.1979. Respondent Mahaveer Prasad was taken in regular cadre w.e.f. 9.8.1977 vide order dated 9.8.1977.Thus, it is apparent that all the incumbents were taken in the regular establishment. They have in fact prayed before the Tribunal and the Single Bench that they should be given benefit of aforesaid circular with effect from the date they have been taken in the regular establishment on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. However, certain circulars were placed on record with respect to the incumbents in the work charge establishment, as they were also entitled to obtain the said relief as decided by the State Government vide circular dated 25.1.1992. Later on, a circular dated 4.3.1998 was issued in supersession of the aforesaid circular dated 20.9.1995 and 3.3.1997, the benefit was ordered to be given w.e.f. 1.1.1998. Thereafter, circular dated 30.9.1998 was issued and it was decided in respect to the work charge employees that they were entitled to the benefit of circulars dated 20.9.1995 and 3.3.1997. In case the benefit has already been given that has to remain extended and thereafter the benefit has to be worked out w.e.f. 1.1.1998 with reference to the date from which they were declared semi-permanent. 4. Considering the aforesaid circular, the Single Bench has ordered that benefit of time bound advancement of pay scale has to be extended upon them from the date on which permanent status was conferred upon them as per the circular dated 25.1.1992. 5. Shri Dinesh Yadav, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State has submitted that the benefit may be given to work charge employees w.e.f. 1.1.1998 in terms of the aforesaid circulars dated 20.9.1995 and 3.3.1997, however, fixation has to be made afresh as per the circular dated 4.3.1998 w.e.f. 1.1.1998, as also specified in circular dated 30.9.1998. Thus, the benefit could not have been ordered to be given with effect from the date they were made permanent. 6. Thus, the benefit could not have been ordered to be given with effect from the date they were made permanent. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has also submitted that in fact the prayer was made by the employees before the Single Bench and the Service Tribunal to give them the benefit of the aforesaid time bound advancement of the pay scale in terms of the circular dated 25.1.1992 with effect from the date they were taken in regular establishment. 7. There is no dispute at Bar that the respondent-employees would be entitled to the benefit of the circular of 25.1.1992 from the date they were taken in regular establishment. 8. In our opinion, in the instant case, the employees were taken long back in regular establishment from the date as mentioned above. Thus, it is not in dispute that the benefit of the circular was required to be extended to them with effect from the date they were taken in regular establishment.We find that the respondents-employees were taken in regular establishment with effect from the aforementioned dates and they were not in the work charge establishment as on the date on which the benefit was also to be extended to the work charge employee. This, the circular in respect of the work charge employees was not applicable to them, however the circular dated 25.1.1992 was applicable to them. Consequently, the decision rendered by the Single Bench extending benefit from the date they became permanent work charge employees cannot be allowed to sustain and that relief is not covered under any of the circulars dated 28.2.1994, 20.9.1995, 3.3.1997, 4.3.1998 and 30.9.1998. The circular dated 25.1.1992 provided that work charge employees who have worked for ten years have to be taken in regular establishment. The respondent-employees were already taken in regular establishment much before issuance of circular dated 25.1.1992. 9. in the instant case, we modify the direction of the Single Bench to the extent that the benefit shall be extended to the respondents from the date mentioned by us in the order and their service has to be counted from the date they were taken in the regular establishment and not from the date they acquired permanent status in the work charge establishment. It is made clear that the respondents-employees were regular employees with effect from the date they were taken in regular establishment, let benefit be accordingly extended to them. We direct that compliance of this order be made within three months.With the aforesaid modification, the appeals stand disposed of. The stay applications also stand disposed of.Appeals dismissed. *******