Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1279 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar Chahar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-04

ARUN BHANSALI

body2023
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking grant of benefit of I, II & III selection grade w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment and to revise their pay/pension/gratuity. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order in Gulam Rasool Bisayati v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.18941/2018 and other connected matters, decided on 08.09.2022 and, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to similar relief. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute that the issue, as raised, is squarely covered by order in the case of Gulam Rasool Bisayati (supra). 4. In the case of Gulam Rasool Bisayati (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court came to the following conclusion:- "For adjudication of the controversy in dispute, consideration of proviso 3 to Clause 3 of notification dated 25.01.1992 is essential. Proviso 3 reads as under: "Provided further that in the case of an employee who has been/ is declared surplus and absorbed against a new post either in the same or another department excluding absorption on higher post, the service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be, shall be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade from the date of initial appointment in the Government service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. As a result of counting of service rendered prior to absorption for grant of selection grade, if the pay of a junior Government servant happens to be more than the pay of his senior, no stepping up of pay of senior Government servant shall be permissible." A bare perusal of the proviso makes it clear that in case of an employee who had been declared surplus and absorbed against some new post in another department, his services for the purposes of grant of selection grade would be counted from the date of initial appointment in the government service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. In the present matters, the relevant recruitment rules would be those of the Irrigation Department wherein the petitioners were originally appointed. It is admitted that the petitioners were employed as work charge employees but subsequently they were declared 'semi-permanent' by the Irrigation Department. In the present matters, the relevant recruitment rules would be those of the Irrigation Department wherein the petitioners were originally appointed. It is admitted that the petitioners were employed as work charge employees but subsequently they were declared 'semi-permanent' by the Irrigation Department. It is not in dispute that the declaration of the status of 'semi- permanent' means that the services of an employee are regularised and he is thereupon entitled to a regular pay scale. Therefore, in terms of the above mentioned proviso the date to be considered for the purpose of grant of selection grade would be the date of initial appointment in the Irrigation Department. In Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: "It is, therefore, enjoined upon all the authorities competent to sanction selection grade that in case where selection grades have been granted to the State Employees by counting the service rendered before regular appointment in the cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules i.e. ad hoc service/work charged service/daily wages etc. may be reviewed. Such employees may be granted selection grades by counting the service rendered by them only after regular appointment in the cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules." The ratio as laid down in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case can be concluded to be that the selection grades would be granted by counting the services rendered by the employees only after regular appointment in the cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. Meaning thereby the effective date to be counted for the purposes of grant of selection grade would be the date when the person has been regularly appointed/ his services have been regularised in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. As observed above, the relevant recruitment rules in the present matters would be the rules in terms of which the petitioners were appointed with the Irrigation Department as work charge employees. They were declared 'semi-permanent' with the Irrigation Department and the same effectually was regularisation of their services with the Irrigation Department. As observed above, the relevant recruitment rules in the present matters would be the rules in terms of which the petitioners were appointed with the Irrigation Department as work charge employees. They were declared 'semi-permanent' with the Irrigation Department and the same effectually was regularisation of their services with the Irrigation Department. Therefore considered from all aspects, may be in view of notification dated 25.01.1992 or in view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra), the only conclusion would be that in case of surplus employees who have been absorbed with some other department, the date of their regularisation in services would be the effective date from which their services would be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grades. Meaning thereby, the grant of the selection grades to the present petitioners w.e.f. their date of absorption with Panchayati Raj Department cannot be held to be valid. Before considering the relief to be granted to the petitioners, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the first selection grade was granted to the petitioners in the year 1998/1999 and challenge to such grant has been sought to be made in the year 2018. This Court has granted indulgence in the present matter only because of the fact that the same is a recurring cause of action which ultimately is affecting the amount of pension being/to be granted to the petitioners. In view of the above observations, the present petitions are allowed. The respondent Department is directed to count the services of the petitioners for the purposes of grant of selection grade w.e.f. the date the petitioners were declared 'semi-permanent' with the Irrigation Department. The revision of the selection grades consequently be made by the respondent Department within a period of two months from the date of the present order. However, it is made clear that the petitioners would not be entitled to any arrears/monetary benefits because of the said revision but they would be entitled to subsequent pensionary benefits only." 5. In view of the submissions made, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in light of and with similar directions as given in the case of Gulam Rasool Bisayati (supra).