Rajasthan High Court
Hari Mohan Gurjar S/O Shri ... vs The Director, Secondary ... on 11 February, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 326/2021
Hari Mohan Gurjar S/o Shri Prasadilal Gurjar, Aged About 63
Years, R/o Village Keshavpura, Tehsil Hindaun, District Karauli,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Director, Secondary Education, (Government Of
Rajasthan) Bikaner.
2. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department,
Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dev Krishna Purohit on behalf of
Mr. P.K. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
11/02/2022
This appeal arises out of an order of learned Single Judge
dated 23.02.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8911/2020.
A small issue has given rise to long litigation. Appellant-
original petitioner was initially engaged by the Government on
temporary basis. He was granted status of semi permanent
workman on 09.04.1982 which is also recorded in the judgment
dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate
Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') which was under challenge in the
(2 of 4) [SAW-326/2021]
writ petition. In the year 1997 the petitioner had filed a writ
petition claiming benefit of promotional post as well as scale
upgradation as per the Government scheme after completion of 9,
18 and 27 years of service. This petition was disposed of by
judgment dated 18.03.2010. The request of the petitioner for
absorption in the higher post was denied. However with respect to
the petitioner's claim for grant of selection grade following
directions were issued:-
"However, claim of the petitioner for grant of selection
scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years in terms of
the Government Circular dated 25.1.1992 is fully
justified because he was declared permanent by order
dated 4.9.1989, which is on record. Moreover, his
juniors Ekam Singh and Phool Singh were also granted
such benefits. The Government by Circular dated
4.3.1998 has decided to confer such benefits to work
charge employees, but subsequently by another
Circular dated 30.9.1998 superseded the earlier
Circular to say that the benefit of selection scale shall
be granted from the date work charged employees are
declared semi permanent.
In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed.
The prayer of the petitioner with regard to his
absorption on the post of LDC is rejected. However, the
order Annexure-8 by which the petitioner was sought to
be reverted to the post of Class IV employee from that
of Lab Boy is quashed. Petitioner is entitled to continue
on the post of Lab Boy in regard to the benefit of
selection scale. The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for grant of selection
scale computing the period of 9, 18 and 27 years from
the date he was declared semi permanent and
accordingly grant him all the consequential benefits in
terms of the Government Circular No.
P.1(3)Finance/Expenditure-3/98 dated 30.9.1998 read
with Circular No. P.1(3)Finance/Expenditure-3/93 dated
4.3.1998 and pay all the consequential benefits to the
petitioner together with interest @ 6% per annum
within a period of three months."
It appears that in the year 2004 the petitioner had also filed
an appeal before the Tribunal. This appeal was decided by the
Tribunal by an order dated 17.03.2020. The Tribunal primarily
(3 of 4) [SAW-326/2021]
proceeded on the basis of judgment of the Single Judge dated
18.03.2010 in case of very petitioner. This order the petitioner
challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition upon which further appeal has been filed.
In our view the petitioner is pursuing completely wrong line.
Once this Court decided the petitioner's rights and granted reliefs,
obviously thereafter it was not open for the Tribunal to either
enlarge or curtail such reliefs. The Tribunal therefore correctly did
not entertain the appeal of the petitioner any further. The learned
Single Judge also therefore committed no error in dismissing the
petition, though for reasons slightly different from what we have
recorded.
Be that as it may counsel for the petitioner submitted that
department has also not granted the selection grade from correct
date i.e. after nine years from his semi-permanency which
happened on 01.04.1982. Learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out that such scale upgradation has been granted with
effect from 01.09.1998 instead of 01.04.1991 which is the
expectation of the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner must
choose the remedy in proper form before the appropriate forum.
The petitioner being a lowly paid class-IV employee and not
possessing sufficient means to pursue legal remedies time and
again it is expected from the Government to look into the matter
on its own and correct the error in granting the selection grade
from the due date if so committed. With these observations this
appeal is disposed of. If the Government fails to correct the error
though detected, it would be open for the petitioner to agitate the
question in accordance with law.
(4 of 4) [SAW-326/2021]
Order for depositing cost is deleted. Nothing stated in this
order is meant to enlarge the benefits given to the petitioner by
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2010.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
N. Gandhi/42
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
