Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 159 (RAJ)

Satya Prakash Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2017-01-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Satya Prakash Gupta has approached this Court craving the following relief:- "(A) a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to accord the promotion on the post of Ranger Gr.I to the petitioner with effect from the date of his next junior was promoted against the vacancies of the year 1995-96 by confirming his ad hoc promotion on the post of Ranger Gr.II w.e.f. the date of his joining on the post of Ranger Gr.II on 10th July, 1978 with all consequential benefits. (B) That the respondents may further be directed to incorporate the name of the petitioner in various seniority list published in respect to the Ranger Gr.II and the Ranger Gr.I. (C) That the respondents may further be directed to grant the benefit of selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 18 and 27 years of services w.e.f. 1st May, 1997 and 1st May, 1998 respectively in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and 8000-13500 with all consequential benefits. (D) That the order dated 16th Nov., 2006 may kindly be declared as illegal and quashed to the extent of extending the benefit of selection grade to the petitioner w.e.f. 25th Jan., 2005. (E) That the order dated 19th Nov., 1998 and the appellate order dated 17th Aug., 2000 may kindly be quashed and set-aside." 2. Whilst advancing final arguments learned counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded that as the petitioner has superannuated during pendency of the writ petition, reliefs No. (A), (B) and (D) sought for by the petitioner have virtually become otiose and thus, he would be limiting his argument to the extent of the challenge given to the illegal denial of selection scale to the petitioner. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner herein was inducted in service of the respondent Forest Department on 1.5.1971 as a Forester on temporary basis. He was thereafter given ad hoc promotion to the post of Dy. Ranger vide order dated 10.7.1978. The post of Dy. Ranger was redesignated in the Service Rules as Ranger Gr.II in the year 1988. The petitioner was, at the time of such redesignation, working on the post of Dy.Ranger. He was thereafter given ad hoc promotion to the post of Dy. Ranger vide order dated 10.7.1978. The post of Dy. Ranger was redesignated in the Service Rules as Ranger Gr.II in the year 1988. The petitioner was, at the time of such redesignation, working on the post of Dy.Ranger. During the period 1987 to 1989, the petitioner was subjected to some departmental inquiries which culminated into orders of penalty being passed against him. Lastly, punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner by order dated 19.11.1998. The said penalty was reduced to stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect by the appellate authority. The review petition preferred against the appellate authority's order was dismissed. The petitioner's name was not included in the seniority list of Dy. Ranger/Ranger Gr.II uptill the year 1996. He continued to represent against the illegal omission of his name in the seniority list. He claims to have cleared the departmental examination conducted for promotion on the post of Ranger Gr.II in the year 1996. The next promotional post falling due in the cadre was Ranger Gr.I. The petitioner was also ignored for such promotion on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings against him. Aggrieved by the unjustified and continued ignorance of his claim for promotion, the petitioner regularly represented to the authorities raising grievance that his juniors were being promoted while ignoring him for no reason whatsoever. He was intimated by a letter dated 7.8.2005 that his promotion to the post of Ranger Gr.II had never been regularised and that his name could be included in the seniority list only if such promotion received the stamp of approval by the regular DPC. Regardless of the above, the petitioner's name was included in the DPC convened for this purpose and was kept in sealed cover. However, promotion was denied to him on the ground of abovementioned departmental punishment. The petitioner claims that he has been doubly penalised by the respondents. On the one hand, he was deprived from regularisation on the post of Ranger Gr.II and consequent promotion on the post of Ranger Gr.I and on the other hand, despite his entitlement to get second and third selection grades upon completing 18 and 27 years of service counted from 1.5.1971 these selection grades have not been afforded him on the relevant dates. The relevant extract of the order (Annex.19) dated 16.11.2006 whereby selection scales of 18 & 27 years were conferred to the petitioner are mentioned hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: Date of regular appointment in service 1.5.1971 Date of completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service 9 years 18 years 27 years 1.5.1989 1.5.1998 Selection Scale approved Rs.5500-9000 Selection Scale approved Rs. 6500-10500 4. The actual date of conferment of both the selection scales is commonly mentioned in the order as 25.1.2005. Thus, a grievance is raised by the petitioner that he was entitled to selection scale of 18 years on 1.5.1989 and of 27 years on 1.5.1998 whereas, the respondents have inflicted a deferment of nearly 16 years and 6 years respectively in these two brackets thereby severely impairing his due monetary benefits as per his entitlement. 5. In reply, the respondents have defended their action in denying promotion as well as benefit of selection scales to the petitioner on account of various adverse entries in his ACRs between the years 1984-85, 1988-89 and also owing to the effect of numerous departmental penalties imposed upon him between the years 1987 to 2000. 6. The petitioner has countered the case set up by the respondents in reply by way of a rejoinder mentioning therein that the last departmental penalty was imposed upon him the year 1998. The petitioner was never subjected to any departmental punishment thereafter and thus, the action of the respondents in deferring the selection scales has been implored. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the deferment of second and third selection scales admissible to the petitioner upon completing 18 and 27 years of service is totally unjustified. Second selection scale admittedly became due to the petitioner on 1.5.1989. Thus, even if the detrimental effect of penalties imposed on the petitioner is accepted, then also, the said second selection scale upon completing 18 years of service could only have been deferred by 7 years in light of the State Government's circular dated 25.1.1992. Thus, the second selection scale should have been afforded to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.5.1996. Furthermore, the third selection scale in reference to the petitioner's initial date of appointment would became due on 1.5.1998. Thus, the second selection scale should have been afforded to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.5.1996. Furthermore, the third selection scale in reference to the petitioner's initial date of appointment would became due on 1.5.1998. The penalty order was issued after the said date and the same could not have been applied posteriorly so as to defer the third selection scale accruing to the petitioner. He thus, urged that the writ petition deserves to be accepted in the terms prayed for. 8. Per contra, Shri S.R. Paliwal learned Dy. Govt. Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He urged that the petitioner was inflicted numerous departmental penalties during his service tenure and therefore, the benefits of selection scales accruing to him were rightly and lawfully deferred in light of the State Government's circular dated 25.1.1992. 9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 10. Admittedly, second and third selection scales upon completion of 9 & 18 years of service became due to the petitioner on 1.5.1989 and 1.5.1998 respectively. A few penalty orders were passed against the petitioner. During the period of maturing of the second selection scale. Thus in view of the State Govt. Circular dated 25.1.1992 at best, a deferment of 7 years was permissible on account of these penalties in the second selection scale accruing to the petitioner by the effect of such penalty orders. Consequently, the second selection scale should have been deferred by 7 years and actually afforded to the petitioner on 5.5.1996. The third selection scale admittedly became due to the petitioner on 1.5.1998. The petitioner had admittedly not been inflicted any departmental punishment between 1.5.1989 to 19.5.1998. Thus, evidently, there was no hurdle against the petitioner's right to receive third selection scale in the routine course as per the actual date of his entitlement i.e. 19.5.1998. The situation at hand is squarely covered by the Judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kuldeep Singh Chouhan & Ors. reported in RLW 1998(2) Raj. Thus, evidently, there was no hurdle against the petitioner's right to receive third selection scale in the routine course as per the actual date of his entitlement i.e. 19.5.1998. The situation at hand is squarely covered by the Judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kuldeep Singh Chouhan & Ors. reported in RLW 1998(2) Raj. 816, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as below: "(9) A conjoint reading of all paragraphs of the Circular makes it clear without any doubt that an employee who completes 9 years of service from the date of his first appointment in the existing cadre becomes entitled to get first Selection Grade, provided his service record is satisfactory. Thus, he becomes eligible to get first Selection Grade on completion of 9 years service, as such, his service record to judge his suitability for granting first Selection Grade could be of that period and not that of later period. Similar shall be the position while examining suitability for second and third Selection Grades on completion of 18 and 27 years of service. The date of Order/Circular i.e. 25.1.1992 prescribes grant of Selection Grades and entitlement of the employees. The eligibility to get first, second and third Selection Grades is completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Hence, suitability for grant has to be judged accordingly and the APARs of the preceding years when one becomes eligible to get first, second and third selection grade, are relevant. The contention that seven years satisfactory service record should be examined from the date of the Order/Circular i.e. 25.1.1992 cannot be accepted as this date is not the date of eligibility. If interpretation, as contended by Shri Gupta is accepted, it would lead to absurdity and serious anomaly. For example, an employee who had already completed 27 years of service on 25.1.1992, having only one adverse entry in the year 1990 before he completed 27 years of service, would be denied all the three selection Grades. In other words, in that situation he shall not be entitled to get first and second Selection Grades and fixation as per the Circular, though his service record for 18 years from the date of his appointment may be unblemished and exemplary. This cannot be intention of the Circular, nor the various paragraphs of the Circular, if read jointly and harmoniously, lead to such conclusion. This cannot be intention of the Circular, nor the various paragraphs of the Circular, if read jointly and harmoniously, lead to such conclusion. Similarly, if 7 years service record is examined from 25.1.1992 for judging suitability of an employee to get benefit of Selection Grades, there may be cases where preceding seven years record from 25.1.1992 may be good but prior to it highly blame-worthy. In that situation also, he shall be entitled to get benefit of all the three Selection Grades and fixation if Mr. Gupta's submission is accepted. Then, if this interpretation is accepted, an employee shall be entitled to get benefit under the Order, inspite of the fact that his preceding service record is good but after it becomes highly unsatisfactory. The Tribunal has rightly observed while rejecting the contention, "now one can be granted three selection grades on the basis of the same 7 years service record and when some adversity is there that adversity would debar him from all the three selection grade on the same basis. This cannot be the intention of the notification dated, 25.1.1992". (10) We are in agreement with the above observations. In our view, the interpretation given by the Tribunal to the Notification/Circular dated 25.1.1992 is the only possible and just interpretation. (11) Consequently, we hold that for judging suitability for grant of first, second and third Selection Grades the dates when an employee completes 9, 18 and 27 years of his service and APARs of preceding 7 years of his entitlement would be relevant." 11. As a consequence of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part. The impugned order (Annex.19) dated 16.11.2006 to the extent second and third selection scales were deferred and afforded to the petitioner w.e.f. from 25.1.2005 is hereby modified. The respondents are directed to grant benefit of selection scales to the petitioner in the following terms:- "Second Selection Scale - With a deferment of 7 years from the order imposing penalty dated 5.5.1989 i.e. w.e.f. 5.5.1996. Third Selection Scale - Without any deferment i.e. w.e.f. 1.5.1998." 12. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from the above direction. Monetary benefits accruing to the petitioner shall be paid to him within a period of three months from today with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of accrual. Third Selection Scale - Without any deferment i.e. w.e.f. 1.5.1998." 12. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from the above direction. Monetary benefits accruing to the petitioner shall be paid to him within a period of three months from today with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of accrual. Failure to make payment within three months shall result into the interest being enhanced to 9% per annum for the period of delay and the responsibility to bear the burden of such enhanced interest shall be of the official/s responsible for causing the delay if any. 13. No order as to costs.