Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 180 (RAJ)

Salim Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-16

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 29.8.2016 (Annex.13) passed by the respondents, inter alia, indicating that the petitioner was entitled to the third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on daily rated basis w.e.f. 30.5.1986. The petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 620/1989, which came to be accepted by this Court on 5.7.1989 directing the respondents to make payment to the petitioner at the minimum pay scale of LDC from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 2.3.1989. Where after, on 2.5.1994 (Annex.2), the services of the petitioner, on the post of LDC, were regularized w.e.f. 2.3.1989. The said order was modified by order dated 20.3.1995, wherein, the date of regularization was changed from 2.3.1989 to 24.2.1994. 3. The petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4290/1998, which was disposed of on 20.1.2003 directing the respondents to pay regular pay scale mentioned in the order dated 2.5.1994 or revised pay scale in reference thereof and would also be entitled for arrears w.e.f. 2.3.1989. Pursuant to the above directions, an order dated 21.9.2004 (Annex.6) was passed by the respondents, inter alia, indicating that petitioner's seniority and first selection grade would be determined from 2.3.1989 treating his service as regular from the said date. The petitioner was accorded first selection grade w.e.f. 2.3.1998 and second selection grade on 2.3.2007 on completion of 18 years of service. 4. When the stage of grant of third selection grade in the year 2016 came and the same was not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner made representation. The respondents by order dated 12.5.2016 (Annex.11) relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 opined that the petitioner would be entitled to third selection grade based on his date of regular service i.e. 24.2.1994. Pursuant thereto, by order Annex.13, the Additional Director (Administration) passed the order impugned, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of third selection grade treating his regular service from 2.3.1989. 5. v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 opined that the petitioner would be entitled to third selection grade based on his date of regular service i.e. 24.2.1994. Pursuant thereto, by order Annex.13, the Additional Director (Administration) passed the order impugned, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of third selection grade treating his regular service from 2.3.1989. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are not justified in treating the service of the petitioner as regular w.e.f. 24.2.1994; repeated orders have been passed by this Court treating the service of the petitioner as regular w.e.f. 2.3.1989 and respondents themselves have passed orders dated 2.5.1994 and 21.9.2004 (Annex.6) in this regard and, therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the order was wrongly passed on 02.5.1994 regularizing the service of the petitioner as LDC w.e.f. 2.3.1989, which order was corrected by another order dated 20.3.1995 and as now the order has been passed based on the judgment in the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. By order dated 2.5.1994 (Annex.2), it was directed by the respondents as under:- jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk dzekad ,Q03¼56½ dkfeZd@d&2@84 fnuakd 12-10-1992 dh vuqikyuk esa rFkk lgk;d 'kklu lfpo izf"k{k.k] g0 p0 ek0 jhik] t;iqj ds i= dzekad ,Q01 528yk@lh&5@89@15377 fnuakd 21-12-1993 ds funsZ"kkuqlkj laLFkku ds rnFkZ :i ls dfu"B fyfid ds in ij dk;Zjr fuEufyf[kr dfu"B fyfidksa dks laLFkku esa dfu"B fyfidksa ds fjDr inksa ij muds uke ds lkeus vafdr frfFk;ksa ls fu;fer fu;qfDr osru J`[kayk uecj 6 ¼950&20&1150&25&1400&30&1640&40&1680½ esa ewy osru 950@& :i;s izfrekg ,oe~ fu;ekuqlkj ns; HkRrksa ij vLFkkbZ rkSj ij dh tkrh gS %& dz0la0 uke deZpkjh in fu;qfDr frfFk 1 Jh lyhe [kku dfu"B fyfid 02-03-1989 2 Jh 'kkfgn vyh dfu"B fyfid 31-03-1989 9. The said order dated 2.5.1994 (Annex.2) was sought to be amended by order dated 20.3.1995. The said order dated 2.5.1994 (Annex.2) was sought to be amended by order dated 20.3.1995. The petitioner filed S.B. Civil, Writ Petition No. 4290/1998, the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions :- "Thus, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction that petitioner shall be paid the regular pay scale mentioned therein or revised pay scale in reference thereto and shall also be entitled for arrears, if any, w.e.f. 2.3.1989. The arrears, if any, may be paid within a period of six months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before respondent No. 2. No order as to costs." 10. Thereafter, the order dated 21.9.2004 altering the date, was passed by the respondents with the following stipulation:- **vr% Jh lyhe [kku dh fnuakd 02-03-1989 dh fu;fer osru J`a[kyk osru o`f) lfgr fn;s tkus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA mudk ofj"Brk fu/kkZfj.k ,oa izFke p;fur osrueku Hkh fnuakd 02-03-1989 ls fu;fer ekurs gq, ns; gksxkA** 11. Admittedly, the petitioner has been given the first and second selection grades by treating his regular appointment w.e.f. 2.3.1989. The above extracted orders passed by the respondents does not leave any manner of doubt that the respondents have regularized the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 2.3.1989 and have acted on the said date. The denial of the third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service in the year 2016 by relying on judgment in the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) appears to be without any basis, inasmuch as, the said judgment also stipulates that the selection scale would be payable from the date of regular service and as noticed, hereinbefore, once the respondents themselves have repeatedly indicated the regularization of petitioner's service from 2.3.1989, the denial, based on the said judgment, is without any basis. 12. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 29.8.2016 (Annex.13) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to accord benefit of third selection grade to the petitioner treating his service as regular w.e.f. 2.3.1989. 13. Needful be done by the respondents along with payment of arrears within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.