Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2303 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Musarrat Ali

2021-12-09

AKIL KURESHI, UMA SHANKER VYAS

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. These appeals arise out of common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience facts may be recorded from D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 570/2020 which arises out of Civil Writ Petition No.18601/2012. The respondent No.1 Musarrat Ali was appointed in the Government service on the post of LDC under order dated 08.09.1981. He was thereafter granted first selection grade in the pay scale of next promotional post of UDC by order dated 19.08.1992. Upon completion of 18 years of service he was granted second selection grade in the pay scale of Office Assistant by order dated 24.09.1999. It may be noted that the employee was assigned duties in the setup of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal. Several years later the employee approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and challenged the order dated 24.09.1999 and prayed that he may be granted second selection grade on the post of Munsrim and thereafter upon completion of 27 years of service, he may be granted third selection grade in the pay scale of Assistant Registrar with effect from 08.09.2008. This prayer was resisted by the Government inter-alia on the grounds that for the employees of the Cooperative Tribunal no separate setup has been sanctioned or service rules framed. They are governed by the Rajasthan Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1957') which were later on superseded by the Rules of 1999. It was pointed out that as per the Rules of 1957 and 1999 from the post of LDC promotion is available to the next higher post of UDC and from that to the Office Superintendent. It was also contended that the challenge was made after long delay and therefore should not be entertained. It was pointed out that the employee was granted benefit of pay upgradation as per the circular of the Government dated 25.01.1992 and which is in order. 2. Ignoring such opposition of the Government the Tribunal passed an order dated 04.06.2012 and allowed the appeal of the employee. It was held that the order dated 27.08.1999 was defective and the employee shall be granted second scale upgradation on completion of 18 years of service in the higher scale of Rs.5500-9000 instead of scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 granted to him. 3. It was held that the order dated 27.08.1999 was defective and the employee shall be granted second scale upgradation on completion of 18 years of service in the higher scale of Rs.5500-9000 instead of scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 granted to him. 3. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State Government in Civil Writ Petition No.18601/2012. According to the learned Additional Advocate General in the writ petition erroneously following averments were made:- 'That the following post in the ministerial service have been available for the Co-operative Tribunal by the State Government. 1 LDC 2 UDC 3 Munsrim (os) 4 Assistant Registrar. This is the channel of promotion amongst the ministerial staff. There is no post of office Asst. in the Co-operative Tribunal.' 4. Referring to the said averments in the petition, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that once the Government itself has admitted that channel of promotion for ministerial service available in the Cooperative Tribunal is that of LDC, UDC to Munsrim and Assistant Registrar then the selection scale has to be granted accordingly. This is the judgment that the State Government has challenged in the present appeal. Facts of the connected appeals are substantially similar and therefore are not separately recorded. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Appellate Tribunal had committed a serious error in entertaining the challenge by the employees at a belated stage ignoring the provisions of limitation and objections of the Government. He further submitted that in the Cooperative Tribunal there is no separate setup of the employees. All the employees are Government employees and are governed by the Rules of 1957 and 1999. In the service rules in question the structure is the basic post of LDC from where promotion to the next higher level of UDC and then from that to Office Assistant and thereafter to the post of Office Superintendent. He submitted that the learned Single Judge relied upon the averments made in paragraph 5 of the petition which averments were at best inaccurate and in any case could not have been seen in isolation. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the employees opposed the appeals contending that the Appellate Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have correctly examined the factual and legal position. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the employees opposed the appeals contending that the Appellate Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have correctly examined the factual and legal position. 7. At our request the learned Additional Advocate General had filed an additional affidavit dated 18.11.2021 along with the Rules of 1957 and the Rules of 1999 to point out that there is no separate setup of employees in Rajasthan Cooperative Tribunal and the employees are the State Government employees governed by the successive service rules. 8. We have perused the documents on record. There is no evidence suggesting that the setup of employees in the Cooperative Tribunal is in any manner separate or different from the State Government. It appears undisputedly that all the staff members discharging their duties in the Cooperative Tribunal are government employees and are governed by the statutory service rules framed by the Government from time to time. We have perused the Rules of 1957 and Rules of 1999 which speak only of the structural hierarchy of the post of LDC at the base and thereafter promotional post of UDC, Office Assistant and Office Superintendent. There is no separate cadre of Munsrim. For convenience or convention if there is any such designation in Cooperative Tribunal, the same would not change the position and the employee concerned will have to be fitted against any of the existing posts sanctioned in the Government setup. That being the position, the claim of the employees that the post of Munsrim in the Cooperative Tribunal is a separate post carrying higher pay scale cannot be accepted. The averments made by the Government in para 5 of the writ petition cannot be seen in isolation and in any case do not amount to any admission on the part of the State administration that in the Cooperative Tribunal the structure of the employees is different from the State Government. It only conveys that the ministerial staff in the Cooperative Tribunal is bifurcated along the lines of LDC, UDC, Munsrim and Assistant Registrar. For convenience nomenclature may change however the sanctioned setup in the State Government cannot. 9. It only conveys that the ministerial staff in the Cooperative Tribunal is bifurcated along the lines of LDC, UDC, Munsrim and Assistant Registrar. For convenience nomenclature may change however the sanctioned setup in the State Government cannot. 9. We however do not accept the grounds of delay raised by the Government since it is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court that correct pay scale is recurring cause and past wages can be curtailed but the challenge itself cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay and limitation. 10. In view of the above discussion the orders passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and that by the learned Single Judge are both set aside. All the appeals are allowed and disposed of. Pending applications if any stand disposed of.