Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2037 (RAJ)

Brij Mohan Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2017-09-11

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. Both the Counsel stated at bar that the judgment placed on record dated 11.07.2016 has attained finality and the issue raised by the petitioners has been addressed to and decided in the said case namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5628/2016; Abdul Hamid v. State of Rajasthan. Wherein it was held as under:— “In view of aforesaid, all the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to give higher pay scale on grant of selection scale in the similar manner as has been directed by this court in the cases of Sohanlal Mathur and Sharvan Kumar (supra). The petitioners would accordingly be entitled to the higher pay scale instead of same pay scale on grant of selection scale. The compliance of the order be made within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order”. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents admitted that the judgment passed by the Court in Sohanlal Mathur and Sharvan Kumar have also attained finality. However, the legal point has been left open to be decided in a suitable case. Admittedly the promotional post for the petitioners are from Helper Pump Driver Gr. II and them to Pump Driver I has been treated as different promotions. Admittedly the pay scale of pump driver II and III are same as per the Pay Scale Rules of 1996 as well as under the Revised Pay Scale from time to time the Court in the aforesaid judgments has held such grant of selection scale as illusory and directed that in terms of circular dated 17.2.1998 the grant of selection scale being given to them as per para 5 of the circular. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that neither there is a challenge to the promotional avenues which has been provided under the rules nor there is allotted. To the said post have been challenged and, therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted. 4. I have heard learned Counsel and also perused the judgment as quoted above. 5. Admittedly, the circular granting selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services provides that person would be entitled for the pay scale of the promotional posts on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. 4. I have heard learned Counsel and also perused the judgment as quoted above. 5. Admittedly, the circular granting selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services provides that person would be entitled for the pay scale of the promotional posts on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. From the perusal of the Rules applicable to the petitioners, it is seen that all the 3 posts i.e. Pump Gr. III, II and I carry the same pay scale and, therefore, they cannot be said to be promotional post and the very word promotion is a misdemeanor in the facts and hence the said post the person would be entitled for receiving the benefit of para 5 of the circular of 17.2.1998 as all the 3 posts would be treated as singular post and the first promotion available would be on the pay scale i.e. available for Pump Driver Gr. I. 6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to recalculate and grant pay scale to the petitioners treating post of Gr. II and III as similar posts and, therefore, on completion of 9 years both would be entitled to receive the selection scale which is available to the Pump Driver Gr. I and thereafter in terms circular dated 21.9.1992 and 17.02.1998, the interpretation drawn herein shall be applied prospectively. The calculation shall be conducted and released within a period of three months henceforth.