Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 213 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MALIRAM

2017-01-17

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. The petitioner-State has come up against the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dt. 18/08/2004 whereby the appeal of the respondent. Maliram was allowed and the orders passed by the authority dt. 20/02/2001 was quashed and set aside. 2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal of the respondent as the services rendered by him in RAC could not be counted for the purpose of granting selection scale and earlier order by which his entire service had been counted was required to be withdrawn. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order dt. 20/02/2001 was not required to be interfered with. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was appointed as a Constable in RAC on 14/09/1964 and was transferred to Armed Police (Civil Police) vide order dated 11/08/1983 and he retired from the post of Constable (Civil Police) on 30/09/2002. The department had earlier granted benefit of 27 years of service counting from 1964 and placed the respondent in the pay-scale of 6500-10500 by its order dated 20/05/2000. This order was wrongfully passed and therefore, the order dt.20/02/2001 was issued cancelling the earlier order dated 20/05/2000 and the respondent was fixed in the pay scale of 5500-9000. The Tribunal has, however, wrongly allowed the appeal of the respondent. 4. Per-contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that the services rendered by the petitioner as a Constable with RAC and thereafter with the Armed Police cannot be distinguished for the purpose of counting 9, 18 and 27 years of service in terms of the Finance Department Circular dt.25/01/1992. 5. It is submitted that the respondent could not have refused orders of his superior authorities transferring him from RAC to Civil Police. Merely because after having posted in Civil Police, if the respondent has requested for being posted at Jhunjhunu, would not mean that he has foregone his entire period of service rendered with RAC. It is submitted, therefore, that the selection scale granted to him on completing 27 years of service could not have been withdrawn. He has further submitted that the respondent was wrongly denied his due salary while he was in service and after retirement the petitioners could not have recovered the amount. It is submitted, therefore, that the selection scale granted to him on completing 27 years of service could not have been withdrawn. He has further submitted that the respondent was wrongly denied his due salary while he was in service and after retirement the petitioners could not have recovered the amount. It is also pointed out that the respondent is getting lesser pension and he has also been paid retiral benefits on the basis of lower salary. It has been prayed that the respondent should be reimbursed and his pension and all retiral benefits should be revised. 6. Counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masiyat : 2015 (4) SCC 334 as well as the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Banne Khan (DB Special Appeal No. 763/2011), decided on 02/08/2011. 7. Having heard both the counsel, this Court finds that the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 8. Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 lay down the method of recruitment of Constable and for RAC or Civil Police, recruitment is conducted jointly. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the services rendered in RAC shall not be counted for the purpose of grant of selection scale under the Circular dated 25/01/1992 and cannot be said to be a separate cadre. It is also seen that transfer of the petitioner from RAC to AP has been done without his request and therefore, there cannot be any forfeiture of earlier period of service even for the purpose of promotion. In view of the long service rendered by the respondent, he was entitled to be given the benefit of 3rd selection scale on completion of 27 years of service as a Constable. The order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, does not call for any interference. The view taken by this Court is supported by the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Banne Khan (supra). 9. Accordingly, the order dt. 20/02/2001 is set aside and the Tribunal's order dt. 18/08/2004 is upheld and the recovery already made is directed to be reimbursed to the respondent and his retiral benefits be also restored by re-calculating the pay-fixation after granting the pay-scale of 6500-10500 on completion of 27 years of service. 9. Accordingly, the order dt. 20/02/2001 is set aside and the Tribunal's order dt. 18/08/2004 is upheld and the recovery already made is directed to be reimbursed to the respondent and his retiral benefits be also restored by re-calculating the pay-fixation after granting the pay-scale of 6500-10500 on completion of 27 years of service. The respondent shall also be entitled to interest of the said amount @ 9% per annum. Compliance of this order shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that if this order is not complied with, the respondent shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings without further notice. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid observations/directions.