Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shyopat Ram vs The Coop.Dept. And Anr on 29 November, 2021

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 169/2018

Shyopat Ram S/o Shri Rawat Ram, R/o Ward No 9 Purani Abadi Shri Karanpur Tehsil Shri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Co-Operative Department Through Its Registrar, Co-

Operative Societies, Government Of Rajasthan, Nehru Shakar Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited Through Its Managing Director, Sri Ganganagar. Raj.

----Respondents

CONNECTED WITH

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 121/2018

Net Ram S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Age about 56 years, R/o VPO Tatarsar Tehsil & District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Co-Operative Department Through Its Registrar, Co-

Operative Societies, Government Of Rajasthan, Nehru Shakar Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited Through Its Managing Director, Sri Ganganagar. Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, Dy.G.C Mr. B.S. Sandhu

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

29/11/2021

Heard.

The petitioners are the employees of Ganganagar Central

Cooperative Bank Limited, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be

referred as 'the respondent-Bank'). The petitioners were working

(D.B. SAW/199/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(2 of 6)

on the post of Managers (Vyavasthapaks) in the various Primary

Agricultural Credit Societies (for short 'the PACS'). The petitioners

were promoted on the post of loan supervisors in the respondent-

Bank.

The grievance of the petitioners is that after granting

promotion to them on the post of Loan Supervisors in the

respondent-Bank, their respective pay scales were altered and

they were fixed in the pay scale admissible to the Loan

Supervisors, however, the pay scale of the Loan Supervisor is

lesser than the pay scale drawn by them on the post of Managers

(Vyavasthapaks). Learned counsel for the petitioners has also

submitted that the action of the respondent-Bank of fixing them in

a lower pay scale on being promoted to the post of Loan

Supervisor from the pay scale of Manager (Vyavasthapaks) is

absolutely illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing

reliance on the decision dated 17.10.2016 passed by the learned

Single Judge of this Court rendered in SB Civil Writ Petition

No.6996/2014 - Amar Singh Vs. The Jalore Central

Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. and other connected writ

petitions, has submitted that this Court has quashed and set aside

the similar action of the Jalore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.,

Jalore vide the above judgment. It is further submitted that

judgment passed in Amar Singh's case has been upheld by the

Division Bench of this Court and the Special Leave Petitions in

similar matters have also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as for the

respondent-Bank have submitted that the case of the petitioners

is not covered by the judgment passed by the learned Single

(D.B. SAW/199/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(3 of 6)

Judge in Amar Singh's case (supra) in view of the amendment

made in the year 2018 in the respective rules.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court in Amar

Singh's case (supra) held as under:-

"I have considered the rival arguments and have perused the material available on record as well as the judgments cited at the Bar.

The first bone of contention between the litigating parties is as to whether the appointment of the petitioners as Loan Supervisors was by direct recruitment or by way of promotion from their original cadre of PACS Managers. Suffice it to say that the order dated 9.3.2005 (Annex.14) issued by the Registrar exercising powers under Rule 39 of the Rules of 2003 and the Schedule appended thereto (which governs such selection) clearly provides that the feeder cadre for filling the posts of Loan Supervisors is that of PACS Manager. In the Clause (gha) of the said order, the channels of promotion are stipulated. One of these channels of promotion as reflected in clause (gha) quoted supra is from the post of PACS Manager to the post of Loan Supervisor. 100% of the posts of Loan Supervisor as per the Schedule annexed to the said order are to be filled in from the cadre of PACS Managers. The Schedule further provides that the process of filling the posts of Loan Supervisors will be by selection. On going through the Schedule, it is further evident that for numerous other posts viz., Financial Analyst, Computer Programmer, Banking Assistants, wherever so intended, the mode of filling the posts is specifically provided to be through direct recruitment. In the cadre of Manager D-Grade, 60% posts are to be filled by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment. Therefore, it is evident that wherever it was desired by the Legislature that the mode of filling the posts would be direct recruitment, it was specifically,

(D.B. SAW/199/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(4 of 6)

stipulated as such in the Schedule. Had the intention of the Statute been that the posts of Loan Supervisor should be filled by direct recruitment, it definitely would have been so specified in the Schedule.

As a consequence of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the firm opinion that the action of the respondent bank in treating the petitioners' appointment on the post of Loan Supervisors to be by way of direct recruitment rather than by way of promotion from the cadre of PACS Manager is totally unjust, illegal and contrary to the statutory orders governing the selections. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners' selection as Loan Supervisors in the Bank was definitely by way of promotion.

Now coming to the second aspect of the matter i.e. the claim of the petitioners for being granted higher pay scale as compared to what they were drawing as PACS Managers. Suffice it to say that as per principles of administrative law, promotion without consequent upgradation in salary is incomprehensible. Admittedly, pay scales admissible to Loan Supervisors upon promotion from the post of PACS Managers are not stipulated in the statutory orders. Thus, indisputably, their pay scales upon promotion are required to be governed by Rule 26A of RSR. This Court examined in detail in the case of Jitendra Kumar Saxena (supra) an identical controversy and held that a promotee cannot be granted basic pay scale lower than what he was drawing on the post from which he was promoted.

The respondent Bank has taken recourse of the chart Annex.A/1 in order to claim that as a matter of fact, the petitioners are being paid more amount upon their selection as Loan Supervisors as compared to what they were drawing as PACS Managers. However, the split up details which have been set out in the chart clearly spell out that the basic salary of the petitioners has been reduced pursuant to their promotion. Most of the petitioners herein were drawing basic pay to the tune of Rs.4,295/- per month as Loan Supervisor

(D.B. SAW/199/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(5 of 6)

which has been reduced to Rs.3,230/- per month.

Thus, evidently, the promotion of the petitioners has proved detrimental to them as regards the pay scales drawn by them. Such a course of action is impermissible in view of Rule 26A of the RSR. Thus evidently, the action of the respondents in placing the petitioners in a lower pay scale from what they were drawing in the feeder post upon their promotion from the post of PACS Managers to the post of Loan Supervisors is absolutely unjust, illegal and arbitrary and the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petitions.

As a consequence of the above discussion, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to upgrade the basic pay of the petitioners in accordance with Rule 26A of the RSR by applying the said rule in letter and spirit. The petitioners shall also be entitled to consequential monetary benefits flowing from the above direction. The entire exercise as directed above shall be completed within a period of six months, failing which the accrued amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum."

The judgment passed in Amar Singh's case (supra) has

already been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents

that in view of the amendment introduced in the relevant service

rules in the year 2018, the petitioners are not entitled to get any

benefit, is without any merit. Learned counsel for the respondents

have frankly admitted that the said amendment cannot be made

effective retrospectively.

Hence, the present writ petitions are allowed. The

respondents are directed to upgrade the basic pay of the

petitioners in accordance with Rule 26A of the RSR by applying the

said rule in letter and spirit. The petitioners shall also be entitled