Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2211 (RAJ)

Shyam Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-14

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.7.2014 and subsequent orders dated 28th July, 2014 and 30th July, 2014 whereby his salary has been reduced. After his retirement, his pay fixation has already been done revising his pay and recovery orders have been issued on the ground that the petitioner has been treated to be promoted from Class-IV employee to the post of LDC and the earlier selection scales granted to the petitioner as LDC on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service have been objected to by the Pension Department. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that firstly, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before revising his pay and allowances; secondly, on merits the revision of pay was unjustified and illegal. 3. There is no regular line of promotion of a Class-IV employee to the post of LDC. The selection on the post of LDC is in terms of by Civil Services Rajasthan Civil Services Ministerial Staff Service Rules 1957/1999 wherein there is a quota provided for class-IV employee earlier for selection to the post of LDC. In the circumstances, holding of the petitioner as class-IV employee earlier had no consequence for the purpose of grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service as LDC and the benefit which had already granted to the petitioner could not have been withdrawn. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Department states that the objection was raised by the Pension Department and in terms of the said objection, the case was examined and, considering that the first promotion from class-IV employee is to the post of LDC, selection scales so granted were not required to be revised. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner of not giving any opportunity/notice stands is uncontroverted. 5. Having heard both the counsel, this Court finds that time and again the Pension Department has been unnecessarily raising objections relating to the pension cases, which are submitted after dues scrutiny by parent department. On account of such objection, the pension matters are being delayed and pension is not being released to the concerned incumbent in time. The objections, which are taken up by the Pension Department, are not even brought to the notice of the concerned retired person nor he is asked to give any explanation thereto. On account of such objection, the pension matters are being delayed and pension is not being released to the concerned incumbent in time. The objections, which are taken up by the Pension Department, are not even brought to the notice of the concerned retired person nor he is asked to give any explanation thereto. The action of the pension department therefore can safely be turned arbitrary in terms of the principle of natural justice. Keeping in view that the right to receive pension is a fundamental right accrued to an employee, which cannot be taken away without giving an opportunity of hearing. 6. That apart, it is also seen that in the present case the action of the Pension Department was in contravention of the Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 as well as the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. In the Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963, there is a channel of promotion from initial post of class-IV employee to the post of Jamadar and thereafter promotion is given to the higher posts, in that department. As far as the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. As per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1957, 15% posts of LDC are reserved for limited selection from class IV employees who passes minimum qualification but the same does not amount to promotion as educational qualification is required to be fulfilled by the concerned class IV employee and would therefore not come within the meaning of same cadre for the purpose of granting selection scale in terms of Circulars dated 25.1.1992 and 17.2.1998. Thus, the benefit which had already been granted to the petitioner was legal and proper and there was no occasion to revise the same. The action of the Pension Department is illegal and unjustified. Having reached to aforesaid finding, the orders dated 11.7.2014, 28.7.2014 and 30.7.2014 are held to be unjustified and illegal and same are quashed and set aside. The consequential benefits to the petitioner be released immediately. The amount recovered if any shall be returned to the pensioner with interest @ 9% per annum. Costs is made easy. 7. Having reached to aforesaid finding, the orders dated 11.7.2014, 28.7.2014 and 30.7.2014 are held to be unjustified and illegal and same are quashed and set aside. The consequential benefits to the petitioner be released immediately. The amount recovered if any shall be returned to the pensioner with interest @ 9% per annum. Costs is made easy. 7. It is made clear that compliance of this order shall be made within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned of the respondent department, failing which the petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings without further notice.