Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2299 (RAJ)

Anandi Lal Saini v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-27

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that respondents may be directed to revise pay-scale of the petitioners by correctly implementing the selection grades on completion of 18 and 27 years of service, as the case may be, as per notifications dated 25.1.1992 & 17.2.1998 and accordingly make refixation of the pay/pension, as the case may be, of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the respective petitioner jointly submit that all the petitioners are seeking benefit of their respective pay scales arising before 01/01/2006 on completion of 18 & 27 years of service, as the case may be. It is further submitted that all the petitioners were born in the cadre and had discharged their duties as regularly selected employees with the respondents since inception. It is further submitted that the controversy in question is no more res integra and has already been decided by this Court m..." Sohanlal Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors." (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3631/2008) decided on 17th November, 2008. The relevant portion of judgment reads as under: "The controversy involved in this petition for writ is considered by this Court in Sharvan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2156/2007, decided on 5.9.2008. In the case aforesaid the issue was relating to grant of selection grade of a person holding the post of Electrician Gr.I having an avenue for promotion to the post of Foreman Gr.II in the same pay scale. In the case aforesaid this Court held as follows:- "As per the respondents the pay scale of post of Foreman Gr.II was given to the petitioner on completion of 18 years of service, however, it is not in dispute that the pay scale of Foreman Gr.II and the Electrician GR.I is same. The Government of Rajasthan under the notification dated 25.1.1992 allowed selection grades on completion of a specific term of service with a view to remove stagnation in service, due to non-grant of promotion. Promotion in service means authority of higher post with higher emoluments. The selection grade satisfies higher emoluments only. If the government do not grant even the higher emoluments then the prescription of selection grade shall be of no consequence. Promotion in service means authority of higher post with higher emoluments. The selection grade satisfies higher emoluments only. If the government do not grant even the higher emoluments then the prescription of selection grade shall be of no consequence. The prescription of same pay scale on competition of 18 years of service as a matter of fact is an illusory benefit and that is not at all grant of selection grade with the spirit of the notification dated 25.1.1992. The petitioner though was not possessing the requisite qualification for the purpose of promotion to the post of Electrical Supervisor, however, selection grade as per para 5 of the notification dated 25.1.1992 should have been allowed to him as that adequately take care of such circumstances." In the instant matter to the petitioner is holding the post of Fitter Gr.I and the pay scale of Foreman Gr.II is given to him. The pay scale applicable for the post of Fitter Gr.I and Foreman Gr.II is same. As per para 5 of the Government of Rajasthan's notifications dated 25.1.1992 and 17.2.1998, in such eventuality the employee is required to receive the next higher pay scale as prescribed in para 5 of the notifications aforesaid. The petitioner as per para 5 of the notification dated 25.1.1992 was entitled to receive second selection grade i.e. of Rs. 1400-2600 instead of Rs. 1200-2050. After revision of the pay scale the petitioner become entitled to get his pay fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 instead of Rs. 4000-6000. As a consequent to the fixation of the selection grades as above, the petitioner also become entitled for fixation in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 instead of Rs. 5000-8000 on getting third selection grade i.e. on completion of 27 years of service. In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 18 years of service as per para 5 of the notifications dated 25.1.1992 and 17.2.1998. The petitioner is declared entitled for getting the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 (Rs. 5000-8000) as second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service and the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 on completion of 27 years of service as the third selection grade. The petitioner is declared entitled for getting the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 (Rs. 5000-8000) as second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service and the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 on completion of 27 years of service as the third selection grade. The entitlement as declared above is required to be executed by the respondents within a period of six months from today. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the judgment of Sohanlal Mathur (supra) was upheld upto the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14932/2012 whereby the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) filed by the State was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 07/09/2012. It is further submitted that the same benefit has also been granted in the matter of "Gani Khan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14192/2013), decided on 12/12/2013. and the judgment in Gani Khan (supra) was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 589/2014, decided on 27/05/2014. The Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20456/2014 filed by the State against the judgment in Gani Khan (supra) was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 16/01/2015. It is further submitted that this Court in Additional Chief Engineer, PHED Jaipur Zone, Jaipur and another Vs. Chhiter Mai Meena & 30 Ors.: 2016 (1) WLC (Raj.) 101, again adopted the same position of law as being claimed by the present petitioners. The compliance report in the matter of Chhiter Mai Meena (supra) has also been shown by learned counsel for the petitioners as complied with by the respondents vide compliance report on 20/11/2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also shown the judgment rendered by this Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12074/2016), decided 16/09/2016 whereby the same benefits were granted to the petitioners in that case. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also drawn attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in Abdul Hamid Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5628/2016 & other connected matters, decided on 11/07/2016 whereby again the same position of law has been reiterated. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also shown judgment rendered by this Court in Mool Chand Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. State of Raj. & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5628/2016 & other connected matters, decided on 11/07/2016 whereby again the same position of law has been reiterated. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also shown judgment rendered by this Court in Mool Chand Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2582/2016), decided on 16/05/2016 whereby the same proposition of law has been reiterated. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also drawn attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Court in Mittu Lal Teli Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14456/2016) & other connected matters, decided on 16/02/2017 laying down the same law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in most of the aforementioned cases, compliance has been made by the respondents and appropriate selection grade on completion of 18 and 27 years of service, as the case may be, has been granted. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners on the premise of the verdict given by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi: 2009 (8) SLR 505 (SC) and State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Surendra Monhot and others: 2014 (5) SLR 257 (SC) and emphasized upon Para 28 of the Judgment rendered in Surendra Monhot (supra), which reads as under:- "28. Our preceding analysis would clearly show that the dictum in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) covers the controversy. The respondents prior to regularization were not members of service or a part of the cadre and hence, the benefit of the circular pertaining to selection grade was not applicable to them. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that they are only entitled to the benefit of selection grade from the date of regularization. The period of nine years, eighteen years and twenty seven years has to be computed from that date. True it is, they may have been given the first benefit on an erroneous understanding of the circular and also prior to the decision in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case. But that would not entitle them to assert their claim on that basis, for that would be contrary to the law of the land as stated in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case. True it is, they may have been given the first benefit on an erroneous understanding of the circular and also prior to the decision in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case. But that would not entitle them to assert their claim on that basis, for that would be contrary to the law of the land as stated in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case. Be it noted, the State, as the latter circular would indicate, has decided not to take any steps for recovery of the benefit. Therefore, we conclude and hold that the writ petition preferred by the respondents before the High Court deserves dismissal and, accordingly, the order passed by the writ court and the decision in intra-court appeal are set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed." 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, submitted that in light of the aforesaid precedent law, the circular has been reinterpreted by the Apex Court and, therefore, the present writ petitions ought to be dismissed. They further submitted that if at all the relief has to be granted, then it can only for those employees, who are regularly selected employees of the respondent and in this regard, they relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as per the judgment rendered by this Court in Bhonri Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10973/2014), decided on 18/05/2017, the claim of the petitioners to seek the benefit in question should be allowed only to the extent of preceding three years from the date of filing of the writ petition. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record as well as the precedent law cited, this Court finds that the issue has been finally settled in the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioners and the controversy in question no longer remains res-integra and open to be considered by this Court. The proposition of taking the relief only to the extent of three years preceding cannot be accepted by this Court as the selection grade is a recurring cause of action and the claim on the selection grade cannot be barred by any kind of limitation. 7. The proposition of taking the relief only to the extent of three years preceding cannot be accepted by this Court as the selection grade is a recurring cause of action and the claim on the selection grade cannot be barred by any kind of limitation. 7. Consequently, in light of the aforesaid mentioned judgments, referred by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present batch of writ petition is also allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled for being given selection grade in terms of Para 5 of the notification dated 25/01/1992 and 17/02/1998 on completion of 18 and 27 years of service, as the case may be. The consequential benefits accordingly be granted to the petitioners by the respondents within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.