Rameshwar Sankhla vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2689 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13042/2019

Shyam Sunder Joshi S/o Shri Nand Kishore Joshi, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of 7-A-41, 4Th Pulia, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaipur.

4. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Bikaner, Bikaner.

5. The Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Bikaner, Bikaner.

6. Director, Pension Department, Jaipur.

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16334/2018

1. Koja Ram Vishnoi S/o Sh. Faglu Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Old Power House, Sanchore, District Jalore. (Retired As Principal On 31.10.2016, From Govt. High Secondary School, Sanchore)

2. Kishna Ram Vishnoi S/o Sh. Bhikha Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 62 Years, R/o V/p Sankad, District Jalore. (Retired As Head Master On 31.08.2016, From Govt. Secondary School, Katol).

3. Bhanwar Lal S/o Sh. Himmta Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Sanchore, District Jalore. (Retired As Abeeo On 30.09.2016, From The Office Of Abeeo, Sanchore).

4. Rawla Ram S/o Sh. Pokara Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/ o Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore. (Retired As Principal On 31.01.2016, From Govt. High Secondary School, Bhinmal).

5. Teja Ram S/o Sh. Gordhan Ji, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Data, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore. (Retired As Assistant Engineer On 31.07.2016, From The Office Of

(2 of 9) [CW-13042/2019]

Public Work Department, Bhinmal, Jalore)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Finance (Budget), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11897/2019

1. Chetan Prakash Sen S/o Shri Madanlal Ji, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Near City Police, Naiyo Ka Chowk, Jodhpur.

2. Sayad Ali Sayad S/o Shri Mohammad Jafar Ali, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Selagate, Akram Khanji Ka Bas, Bali, District Pali.

3. Smt. Krishna Chouhan D/o D L Kavadiya W/o B. L.

Chohan, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 993, Gyan Nagar, Sector 4, Hiran Magari, Udaipur.

4. Shri Banshilal Jangid S/o Shri Raghunath Jangid, Aged About 62 Years, Mukam Post Barwala, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur.

5. Shri Shanti Lal Nanoma S/o Hakraji Nanoma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Mukam Ladsaur, Post Veja, Via Vika Nagar, District Dungarpur.

6. Shri Bajrang Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Amar Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 325, Mohan Nagar B, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur.

7. Shri Mangilal Paliwali S/o Shri Jarupa Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 04-J-12, Kudi Bhagtasani, Housing Board, Jodhpur.

8. Shri Mahendra Singh Bhati S/o Shri Madho Singh Bhati, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Plot No. 1, Mali House Road, Bhati Chouraha, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

9. Shri Virendra Prakash Bohra S/o Shri Shiv Prakash Bohara, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 282, Parihar Nagar, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur.

10. Shri Kistoor Ram Panwar S/o Jugata Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 18E-142, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

11. Shri Saddique Miyan Pathan S/o Shri Juma Khan Pathan, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Jumma Manjil, Opposite Jubeda

(3 of 9) [CW-13042/2019]

Masjid Khaniya Ke Samne, Nai Sarak, Jodhpur.

12. Smt. Shashi Vaishnav S/o Shreelal Diwakar, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 440, Gali No. 3, Milkmen Colony, Pal Road, Jodhpur.

13. Shri Hans Raj S/o Shri Shiv Dan, Aged About 62 Years, R/ o 140, Pawan Vihar, Jodhpur.

14. Smt. Suryakanta Panchal D/o Kanhaiyalal Panchal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o House No. 515, Sector 12, Roshan Colony, Savina, Udaipur.

15. Shri Vinod Kumar Mehra S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Mehra, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Shri Budharam Bagdi, Ramdev Mandir Ke Pas, Bar, District Pali.

16. Hari Prakash Dandor S/o Rodiya Ji Dandor, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Lembata Fala Pipaliya, Post Rincha, Tehsil Sabla, District Dungarpur.

17. Shri Kailash Chandra Joshi S/o Shri Gopi Kishan Joshi, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 76/108, Dadhich Nagar Iii, Outside Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

18. Shri Gajendra Shripat S/o Shri Kishanlal Ji, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Javkhuniya, S.b.i. Bank Ke Piche, Gandhi Colony, Jaisalmer.

19. Bhagwat Singh S/o Ridmal Singh Ji, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 163/ii Phase, Ashapurna City, Pal, Jodhpur.

20. Shri Narain Singh S/o Shri Parbat Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Karoli, Post Amthala, Via Shantwan, Abu Road, Sirohi.

21. Shri Moda Ram S/o Shri Lumba Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Murkasani Post Ransi Gaon Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.

22. Shri Joga Ram Mundel S/o Shri Puna Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Murkasani Post Ransi Gaon Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.

23. Shri Ramu Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Pabu Ram Choudhary, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Osian, Teh. Osia, District Jodhpur.

24. Shri Manohar Singh Bhati S/o Shri Shiv Nath Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Gaga Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.

25. Shri Narpat Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Bhika Ram Bishnoi,

(4 of 9) [CW-13042/2019]

Aged About 63 Years, R/o Bapu Nagar, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

26. Shri Bhojraj Singh Bhati S/o Shri Guman Singh Bhati, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Raiser Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.

27. Shri Junja Ram S/o Shri Prema Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Post Janadesar Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

28. Sattar Mohammed Bagdi S/o Shri Ahmed Khan, Aged About 63 Years, R/o V.p. Devli Kalla, Raipur, District Pali.

29. Devi Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Bheru Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Muban Post Beda Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

30. Guman Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o V.p. Nimbahera Kala, Raipur, District Pali.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, School, Department Of Education, Jaipur.

3. Joint Secretary To The Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Finance Department, Jaipur.

4. Director, Secondary Education

5. Director, Elementary Education, Department Of Education, Bikaner.

6. Director, Pension Department, Jaipur.

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3950/2020 Rameshwar Sankhla S/o Shri Paras Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Vandana Palace, Plot No. 132, Hari Om Nagar, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary School, Department Of Education, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Secretary To The Government, Government Of

(5 of 9) [CW-13042/2019]

Rajasthan, Finance Department, Jaipur.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

5. The Director, Pension Department, Jaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Vinay Jain
                                 Mr. Om Prakash
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

16/02/2022

These petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are

aggrieved by the fixation of cut off date as 01.01.2017 for the

purpose of granting the actual benefits consequent upon

implementation of the recommendation of the pay commission

made effective from 01.01.2016 while carrying out the

amendment in Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)

Rules 1996 (hearinafter referred to as, "The Pension Rules").

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in

these petitions is that the pay commission recommended revision

of pay and consequently, pension was also required to be revised

proportionately with effect from the date from which revision was

recommended for being effective i.e. from 01.01.2016.

Further, it is argued that only notional benefits from

01.01.2016 has been granted in that matter or in the revision of

pensionary benefits by carrying out amendment in Rule 55 of the

Pension Rules where actual benefits have been denied in respect

of period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016.

(6 of 9) [CW-13042/2019]

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

fixation of cut off date for grant of actual date (01.01.2017), is

arbitrary, erroneous and not on the basis of any material, but it

has been fixed only with the object to deny legimate claim of the

pensioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the

reply filed by the State is conspicuously silent with regard to the

operative reason for not giving effect to the recommendation of

the Pay Commission from 1.1.2016 in the matter of granting

actual benefits. As a result of such arbitrary fixation of cut off date

for the purpose of granting of actual benefits, the petitioners have

been deprived of material benefits, which they would have earned

as pensionary benefits after their retirement prior to 31.12.2017.

Learned Additional Advocate General, referring to the

averments made in the reply, stated that the anomalies in the

matter of implementation of the recommendation of the Pay

Commission were examined by a Committee constituted by the

Government and upon recommendation made by the Committee,

amendments were carried out by issuing notification and in such

manner the notional benefits were granted from 01.01.2016, but

the actual benefits would be payable with effect from 01.01.2017.

According to the learned State's counsel earlier cut off date

was provided 01.10.2017, which was later on changed and was

preponed to 01.01.2017. While relying upon earlier decision of this

Court in the case of D.B. Revision Petition No.256/2011

(Government of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Om prakash Mathur) and

various decisions of the Supreme Court referred therein, he

submitted that grant of actual benefits in the matter of

implementation of revised of pay scale is essentially a policy

(7 of 9) [CW-13042/2019]

decision having financial impact. The decision of the State in

framing policy which is having financial impact could not be

interfered with only because the fixation of cut off date deprived

actual benefits to some of the beneficiaries including the persons

like petitioners.

According to him, in such cases, in the absence of their being

any unreasonableness, irrationality or manifest arbitrariness,

interference may not be called for. He would submit that earlier

also when there was an occasion to examine the correctness of

the cut off date in the matter of implementation of

recommendation of 5th Pay Commission, similar arguments were

considered and rejected by this Court.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going

through the record, we find that the contention raised by the

petitioners is essentially seeking to challenge cut off date in the

matter of implementation of the recommendation of pay

commission in so far as actual benefits are concerned.

Indisputably, the recommendation of the pay commission have

been implemented notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2016. However, the date

for grant actual benefits was earlier fixed as on 01.10.2017, which

after further consideration was made effective from 01.01.2017

and finally it was approved.

Similar issue had come up for consideration in the case of

Government of Rajasthan Vs Om Prakash Mathur (DB Review

Petition No.256/2011, decided on 3.11.2017 wherein the

coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-

"We find that the same learned Single Judge, in a decision dated August 26, 2002, dismissing a batch of writ petitions, lead matter being S.B. Civil

(8 of 9) [CW-13042/2019]

Writ Petition No.2868/1998, Ramji Lal Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., noted the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported as (1994) 2 SCC 729, State of U.P. Vs. U.P. University Colleges pensioners Association, (2003) 3 SCC 733, State of Punjab Vs. Boota Singh and (1995) 2 SCC 117, State of Rajasthan Vs. Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti to hold that policy formulation and an articulation or change therein is a prerogative of the State Government.

The Court can only interfere with the policy decision when it is either unreasonable or arbitrary. The learned Single Judge has held that as per law declared in said judgments it is open to the Government to decide, having regard to the budgetary provision, as to what should be a cut off date fixed for grant of financial benefits. The learned Single Judge concluded that the condition as per the notification was valid considering the financial implication which would be upon the State if the benefits were conferred from an earlier date.

11. Not only we find good reasons given by same learned Single Judge in the decision dated 26.08.2002, but independently thereof, find that no discrimination has resulted as a result of the policy decision. All Government servants who superannuated on or before 31.12.1996 were paid pension in the revised pay scales with effect from 01.01.1997.

12. For purposes of commutation of pension the salary received in the pre-revised scale was treated as the basis. Of course, pay scales of the Government servants were revised on 01.01.1996, but no arrears were paid from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.1996. Thus, all Government servants were treated at par."

(9 of 9) [CW-13042/2019]

Considering that the similar issue has also been dealt with

and decided by this Court previously relying upon various decision

of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any ground to interfere

with the decision taken by the Government in the matter of

implementation of recommendation of pay commission granting

actual benefits from 01.01.2017 to the category to which the

petitioners belong.

These petitions are accordingly dismissed.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

42-45-Hanuman/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)