Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 790 (RAJ)

Hari Mohan Vyas v. General Manager(ADM)

2015-04-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
Order The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for a direction that he should be granted the pay scale of Store Munshi/Munshi which is mentioned at S. No. 50/51 of Appendix-II of the Rajasthan Work Charged Code from the date he was made semi permanent i.e. 1.10.1983. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was at one point of time allowed by this Court by order dated 1.7.2008 and the respondents were directed to grant the pay scale of Store Munshi/Munshi (S. No. 50/51 of the Appendix-II) to the petitioner from the date he was declared semi permanent. The said judgment was carried by the respondent Board to the Division Bench by way of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ petition) No. 1070/2008. The said appeal came to be allowed vide judgment dated 4.1.2013 observing as below:- “A comprehension of the order impugned makes it clear that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the assumption that two type of posts as referred in the Work Charged Rules were essentially differentiated on the minimum qualification prescribed; and it has been assumed that there were different scales prescribed only on the differentia of matriculate Munshi and non-matriculate Munshi. With respect, we are unable to find any basis for this assumption. True it is that one post is referred as “Store Munshi/Munshi” and another as “Munshi”; and the first post of “Store Munshi/Munshi” is to be filled in 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion and, for this first post, the minimum qualification is matriculate; and, on the other hand, for the second post i.e., of “Munshi”, the recruitment is by way of promotion from the post of Mate and minimum qualification is middle pass. However, it is difficult to find that such minimum qualifications for the two posts would be decisive of the pay scale allowable to the petitioner. The submissions of the appellants appear having not acquired the attention of the learned Single Judge that even if having higher qualification, when a person is appointed on a lower post, he would get the pay scale applicable to the post concerned and would not be entitled to claim higher pay scale only on the basis of qualification; and unless the petitioner was granted the status of “Store Munshi”, he could not have claimed the pay scale of Rs.490-840. In the present case, the petitioner's initial appointment order dated 15.04.1981 has not come on record to show the nature of his appointment though it is stated that he was appointed as work-charge “Munshi”. For the issues involved in the matter, the relevant aspect of the enquiry ought to have been the nature of duties assigned to the writ petitioner and the work executed by him as compared to the nature of duties of Store Munshi. Then, the respondents have stated in their reply that according to the resolution dated 07.08.1987, 27 posts of Munshi and 27 posts of Store Munshi were created and at that time, the persons who were working on daily basis on the post of Munshi were declared semi-permanent as Munshi whereas those who were working on the post of Store Munshi were declared semipermanent as Store Munshi. The relevant documents in this regard were, however, not placed before the learned Single Judge. Thus, in the result, the learned Single Judge merely proceeded on the basis of the prescribed minimum educational qualification for the posts of “Store Munshi/Munshi” and “Munshi” and on that basis, deduced that the two posts were differentiated as “matriculate Munshi” and “non-matriculate Munshi”; and as a consequence, held the petitioner, who was a matriculate, to be entitled to the pay scale of Store Munshi. With respect, the nomenclature of “matriculate Munshi” and “non-matriculate Munshi”, as suggested by the petitioner and accepted by the learned Single Judge does not appear to be free from doubt. It is difficult to find in the Scheme of Rules such differentia as the so-called “matriculate Munshi” and “non-matriculate Munshi”. Though the seemingly akin nomenclature of the two posts of “Store Munshi/Munshi” and “ Munshi” has led to making of the claim by the petitioner but, for determination of the issue involved in the present matter, the relevant factual aspects about the work-charged establishment of the appellants and the difference of nature of duties of the posts of “Store Munshi/Munshi” and “Munshi” deserve to be gone into; and the issue cannot be decided by mere different categorisation of the posts as “matriculate Munshi” and “non-matriculate Munshi”. In other words, for the purpose of issue involved, the enquiry into the questions relating to nature of appointment of the petitioner and nature of duties assigned to him; and whether there were any distinctive feature of such duties from the duties of Store Munshi and other corelated aspects do deserve consideration before finally coming to the conclusion if the petitioner is entitled to be granted the scale of “Store Munshi/Munshi” from the date he was accorded semi permanent status. Even the observations of the learned Single Judge that the appellants themselves had granted the pay scale of Rs.950-1680 to the petitioner in the year 1995 have their own shortcomings because in the order dated 05.09.1995, it was, inter alia, stated that the benefit was being granted to such “Munshi” who was having the qualification of matriculate or more. It has, yet, Hari Mohan Vyas been observed that despite grant of pay scale, these persons would continue to work on the post of “Munshi” only. In our opinion, it is difficult to deduce from this document that the appellants had admitted the writ-petitioner's entitlement of the pay scale prescribed for Store Munshi from the date he was given semi-permanent status. In view of the above, we are of opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that the entire matter is re-considered by the learned Single Judge while granting an opportunity to both the parties to place further material on record, if so desired.” Thus, a plain comprehension of the order passed by the Division Bench makes it evident that the claim of the writ petitioner that he should be given the benefit of pay scale of Store Munshi/Munshi has virtually been eclipsed. After recording the above findings the Division Bench gave the petitioner an opportunity to demonstrate before the Court that as a matter of fact, after being declared semi permanent, he had been assigned the duties of Store Munshi/Munshi (S. No. 50/51 of the Appendix-II) and thus he should be given the benefit of the said pay scale. However, despite a period of more than two years having passed, the petitioner has failed to place any material on record to satisfy this Court that he was at any point of time assigned the duties of higher pay scale of Store Munshi/Munshi. However, despite a period of more than two years having passed, the petitioner has failed to place any material on record to satisfy this Court that he was at any point of time assigned the duties of higher pay scale of Store Munshi/Munshi. The additional affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner Hari Mohan Vyas is absolutely silent on this issue and is nothing but a repetition of the averments made in the writ petition. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.