Rajasthan High Court

Mansingh Meena S/O Dhanpal Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan on 30 November, 2021

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11684/2019

Mansingh Meena S/o Dhanpal Meena, Aged About 28 Years,
Residence Of Village Post (Vpo) Neendarda, District- Sawai
Madhopur (Rajasthan).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary,
       Pandchayat         Raj    Department,           Govt.     Of     Rajasthan,
       Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sawai Madhopur,
       District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
3.     District     Education       Officer,      (Mukhyalay),         Elementary
       Education, District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
4.     Chief      Block    Elementary           Education        Officer,    Sawai
       Madhopur, District- Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
5.     Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (Peeo), Govt.
       Senior Secondary School, Jatwara Kalan, Block Sawai
       Madhopur, District- Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
6.     Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sawai
       Madhopur, District- Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
7.     Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kolayat,
       District- Bikaner (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Mohar Pal Meena
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

30/11/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking pay

protection after his appointment as Teacher Grade III in the year

(2 of 6) [CW-11684/2019]

2015 in the pay scale he was getting as Teacher Grade III on his

appointment in the year 2012.

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

the petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade III (Level I)

vide order dated 12.11.2012 in pursuance of direct recruitment

competitive examination, 2012. After obtaining No Objection

Certificate dated 24.04.2013 from the competent authority, the

petitioner appeared in direct recruitment competitive examination,

2013 wherein, on remaining successful, vide order dated

31.03.2015, he was appointed as Teacher Grade III. He was

relieved on 31.03.2015 to join the new assignment. Vide order

dated 24.12.2018, the petitioner was confirmed as Teacher Grade

III from the initial date of appointment, i.e., 20.11.2012. After

completion of the probation period, the petitioner has been

extended regular pay scale of Teacher Grade III. It is averred that

despite circular dated 09.08.2018 issued by the State Government

to grant benefit of pay protection, the petitioner has not been

extended the same and hence, the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the circular

dated 09.08.2018 issued by the State Government specifically

requires all the Executive Officers of the Zila Parishad in the entire

State of Rajasthan to fix the pay and annual increments of the

teachers appointed in pursuance of competitive examination 2013

extending them benefit of their earlier service in pursuance of

competitive examination, 2012 in view of provisions of Rules 24 &

26 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for brevity, "the Rules of

1951"). He submitted that such benefit has been extended to

persons similarly situated and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

(3 of 6) [CW-11684/2019]

has, vide its order dated 24.08.2016 in case of Praveen Kumar

Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.9500/2007, directed the respondents therein to extend the

petitioner benefit of pay protection under Rule 24 of the Rules of

1951. He, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed

to extend him the benefit under Rules 24 & 26 of the Rules of

1951.

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General opposing the

prayer submitted that the petitioner has been accorded fresh

appointment after his selection in pursuance of the competitive

examination, 2013 and hence, he is not entitled for benefit of his

past services on an equivalent post. Referring the provisions of

Rules 286, 286A & 288 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules,

1996 (for brevity, "the Rules of 1996"), learned counsel submitted

that the period of service of an employee on deputation or on

higher post only can be counted for the purpose of pay protection

and not otherwise. Learned counsel submitted that under the

scheme of Rules, the petitioner would get fix emolument only

during the probation period. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of

the writ petition.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

Following undisputed facts emerge from the material on

record:

* Vide order dated 12.11.2012, on remaining successful in

the competitive examination, 2012, the petitioner was extended

appointment as Teacher Grade III.

(4 of 6) [CW-11684/2019]

* With prior permission of the competent authority, the

petitioner appeared in the competitive examination, 2013 and on

remaining successful, vide order dated 21.03.2015, he was

appointed as Teacher Grade III.

* The petitioner was relieved on 31.03.2015 to join his new

assignment whereupon, he joined as Teacher Grade III on

01.04.2015.

* On satisfactory completion of the probation period,

services of the petitioner have been confirmed.

Now, the question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled

for the benefit of pay protection on account of his services

rendered as Teacher Grade III from November 2012 to March

2015. Second proviso of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1951 provides as

under:-

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

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

(5 of 6) [CW-11684/2019]

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."

Taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions and

judgment dated 15.01.2018 in case of Virendra Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1354/2017, the

respondent No.1 has issued a circular dated 09.08.2018 directing

all the Executive Officers of the Zila Parishad in the entire State of

Rajasthan to give an option to the persons reappointed as Teacher

Grade III in pursuance of competitive examination, 2013 to opt for

the pay scale of his/her earlier posting as Teacher Grade III in

pursuance of recruitment examination, 2012. A co-ordinate Bench

of this Court has, in case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra), in

identical situation, 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 after20.01.2006 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 protect the pay of the petitioner in terms of Rule 24."

The aforesaid dictum in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav

(supra) has been followed by another co-ordinate Bench of this

(6 of 6) [CW-11684/2019]

Court in its judgment dated 17.1.2017 in case of Chandra Kala

Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.18703/2017 and other connected matters.

Thus, from the aforesaid statutory provisions, the circular

dated 09.08.2018 and the judgments of this Court, a clear picture

emerges that the petitioner is entitled for pay protection in terms

of Rule 24 & Rule 26 of the Rules of 1951.

The reliance placed by the learned Additional Advocate

General on the provisions of Rules 286, 286A & 288 of the Rules