Smt. Sushila W/O Shri Vjay Kumar ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7347 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20/2020

Smt. Sushila W/o Shri Vjay Kumar D/o Shri Mahaveer Singh,
Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Godu Ka Bas, Post
Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director Secondary
        Education, Education Department, Bikaner.
2.      The District Education Officer, (Secondary) Department,
        District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Berwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, Addl.G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

08/12/2021 This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the

respondents to protect the petitioner's pay considering the

services rendered by her from 17.07.2013 to 18.06.2016 as

Physical Training Instructor Grade-III (for brevity, 'PTI Grade-III').

The facts in brief, as emerged from the writ petition, are that

vide order dated 13.07.2013, the petitioner was appointed as PTI

Grade-III after her regular selection. Vide order dated 01.12.2015,

on satisfactory completion of her probation period, she was

confirmed. After obtaining no objection certificate from the

competent authority, the petitioner appeared in the combined

competitive examination for appointment as PTI Grade-II/III

wherein, on remaining successful but, being lower in merit, vide

(2 of 4) [CW-20/2020]

order dated 05.06.2016, she was appointed as PTI Grade-III

instead of PTI Grade-II. She was relieved from earlier assignment

vide order dated 18.06.2016 and she joined her duties on

20.06.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of

provisions of Rules 24 and 26 of the Rajasthan Service Rules,

1951, the petitioner is entitled for pay protection on account of

her past services on equal post. He, in support of his submission,

relies upon a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court dated

05.03.2018 passed in SBCWP No.18352/2016, Sunil Kumar

Poonia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and other connected

matters.

He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the

respondents may be directed to extend her benefit for pay

protection.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since

her appointment vide order dated 05.06.2016 amounts to fresh

appointment and hence, the petitioner is disentitled for pay

protection.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

In view of the undisputed facts, only question which arises

for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for

benefit of pay protection in terms of Rules 24 and 26 of the Rules

of 1951.

Second proviso to Rule 24 provides as under:

"Rule 24. Pay not to exceed Level in the Pay Matrix- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(3 of 4) [CW-20/2020]

Provided further also that a Government servant, who is already in regular service of State Government, if appointed as probationer-trainee on a post carrying Level in the Pay Matrix either equal or higher than the previous Level in the Pay Matrix shall be allowed pay in his/her Level in the pay Matrix of the previous post or fixed remuneration at such rates as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time, whichever may be beneficial to him/her and after successful completion of period of probationer-trainee, his/her pay shall be fixed in Level in the Pay Matrix of the new post as per provision of Rule 26."

Proviso to Rule 26(1) lays down as under:

"Rule 26(1). Fixation of pay of a probationer- trainee completing probation period successfully in the Pay Matrix -

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Provided that a Government servant who is already in regular service of the State Government, if appointed on another equal or higher post as a probationer- trainee and has opted to draw pay in the Level of the previous post, on successful completion of probation period his pay including annual increments due on previous post during the period of probationer-trainee will be fixed in the Pay Matrix of the Level of the new post at the equal Cell and if there is no equal Cell than at the next Cell."

A co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in case of

Praveen Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,

SBCWP No.9500/2007 vide its judgment dated 24.08.2016,

held as under:

"It is manifest from reading of the second proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules that the pay of the government servant who was already in regular service of the State and has been appointed as probationer trainee for a period of two years on or after 20.01.2006 shall be protected. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner is to be protected as he was already a government servant when he was appointed as Teacher Grade-III at Ajmer District vide order dated 23.03.2005.Indisputably, there is no break in the service of the petitioner and he was working at Ajmer before joining a subsequent place of posting at Alwer in terms of the later advertisement. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to

(4 of 4) [CW-20/2020]

protect the pay of the petitioner in terms of Rule

24."

The aforesaid dictum in case of Praveen Kumar Yadav

(supra) has been followed by this Court in the cases of Chandra

Kala Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP

No.18703/2017, decided on 17.01.2017 and other connected

matters and Sunil Kumar Poonia (supra) and Mansingh

Meena and The State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.11684/2019,

decided on 30.11.2021.

Thus, from the aforesaid statutory provisions contained in

the Rules of 1951 and the judgments of this Court, there is no

doubt as the entitlement of the petitioner for pay protection in

view of services rendered by her from 17.07.2013 till 18.06.2016

as PTI Grade-III and contention of the learned counsel for the

respondents that her appointment vide order dated 05.06.2016

being fresh, she is disentitled for pay protection, does not merit

acceptance.

In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents

are directed to extend the benefit of pay protection to the

petitioner in terms of Rules 24 and 26 Rules of 1951 and pay her

arrears within a period of three months from today.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

MADAN/78

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)