Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2828 (RAJ)

Banwari Lal v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-28

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to grant him benefit of selection scale on completion of 9/18/27 years of service, as per circular dated 25.01.1992. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Patwari on 16.12.1956 and considering petitioner's good service record, he was subsequently promoted on the post of Nayab Tehsildar on 09.12.1987 and further promoted on the post of Land Revenue Inspector against the vacancies of the year 1991-92. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner stood retired from service on 31.03.1995 after attaining the age of superannuation. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be granted benefit of selection scale as per Notification dated 25.01.1992 and accordingly when his case was considered by the respondents, the Registrar, Board of Revenue issued an order dated 18.12.2008, wherein it decided that the petitioner was not entitled for first selection scale on completion of 9 years, as the petitioner was promoted on the recommendation of DPC against the vacancies of the year 1991-92. 5. The Board of Revenue further decided that the petitioner was entitled for second and third selection scale w.e.f. 25.01.1992, however, on account of two minor punishments imposed on the petitioner vide orders dated 12.02.1988 and 06.09.1990, the petitioner ought to have been granted second and third selection scale from 25.01.1994, however, due to another penalty order subsequently issued vide order dated 10.09.1992, the petitioner was held entitled for second and third selection scale with effect from 25.01.1995. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the said order issued by the Board of Revenue, the District Collector also took a decision on 02.11.2009 and as such the implementation of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, was to be made by the Authorities. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that after submitting several representation, the petitioner when did not get any relief, he served notice for demand of justice and thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed. 8. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that after submitting several representation, the petitioner when did not get any relief, he served notice for demand of justice and thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions submitted that the respondents in their reply filed before this Court, have also admitted that the petitioner was entitled to be given benefit of selection scale from 25.01.1995, considering the service record of the petitioner including the currency of punishment orders dated 12.02.1988 and 10.09.1992. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an old person, who tried at administrative level to get justice, however, the post retiral benefits of the petitioner has also not been revised by the respondents in spite of passing the orders of giving benefit of second and third selection scale to the petitioner with effect from 25.01.1995. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was required to be considered by the Authorities and the order of Board of Revenue dated 18.12.2008 was subsequently sent to the District Collector, Alwar and accordingly an order was issued by the District Collector, Land Revenue on 02.04.2009. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was already getting his post retiral benefits and as such the relief, which has been claimed by the petitioner has already been granted by the respondents by issuing the orders. 12. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This Court finds that undisputedly the respondents after considering the service record of the petitioner found that the petitioner was not entitled for benefit of first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service, as per the Government Notification dated 25.01.1992, as the petitioner was already promoted during the period of 9 years for the purpose of granting benefit of first selection scale. 14. This Court further finds that the Board of Revenue vide letter dated 18.12.2008 considered currency of punishment orders dated 12.02.1988, 06.09.1990 and 10.09.1992 and since these penalty orders were of minor in nature, the petitioner was held entitled for grant of second and third selection scale from 25.01.1995. 15. 14. This Court further finds that the Board of Revenue vide letter dated 18.12.2008 considered currency of punishment orders dated 12.02.1988, 06.09.1990 and 10.09.1992 and since these penalty orders were of minor in nature, the petitioner was held entitled for grant of second and third selection scale from 25.01.1995. 15. This Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Authorities though had issued the orders, however, these orders were not given effect and the petitioner was not granted actual benefit and his post retiral benefits were also not given by granting him benefit of second and third selection scale. 16. This Court finds that once the currency of minor penalty order has already been considered and grant of second and third selection scale of the petitioner was deferred from 25.01.1994 to 25.01.1995, there remained no option with the respondents except to grant actual benefit to the petitioner. 17. This Court finds that reply filed by the respondents also confirms the entitlement of the petitioner w.e.f 25.01.1995 and accordingly, there is no objection about claim of the petitioner to grant him second and third selection scale. 18. This Court accordingly allows the present writ petition and directs the respondents to give the benefit of second and third selection scale to the petitioner on completion of 18 and 27 years of service with effect from 25.01.1995. 19. The respondents are also directed to calculate arrears of the petitioner on account of revision of his pay and other benefits. The post retiral benefits of the petitioner are also required to be recalculated. The arrears and revision of post retiral benefits should be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks after receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the said payment is not made within a period of six weeks, the petitioner would be entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum from the date such payment becomes due to the petitioner.