Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Kumar Arora vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8619/2020
Anil Kumar Arora S/o Late Shri Shrikrishna Arora, Aged About 50
Years, R/o 17/29, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
General, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Administration), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Hemant Ballani (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chayan Bothra (through VC),
Assistant to Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr.
Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
ORDER
Order pronounced on ::: 22/02/2022
Order reserved on ::: 19/01/2022
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)
The petitioner is working on the post of Private Secretary-
cum-Judgment Writer in the establishment of the Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to
assail the action of the respondents in denying him one annual
grade increment and the order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-16)
whereby, the representation dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure-15)
filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid denial was rejected
(2 of 5) [CW-8619/2020]
and to direct that the anomaly existing in the pay of the petitioner
vis-a-vis with that of another Private Secretary-cum-Judgment
Writer namely Ms.Tak, at par with the petitioner, be removed.
Shri Vikas Balia, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri
Hemant Ballani urged that the action of the respondents in
denying same basic pay to the petitioner as another Private
Secretary who is equal in rank and seniority to the petitioner and
at par is absolutely unjustified, arbitrary and amounts to hostile
discrimination. He urged that the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure-15) to the respondent
authorities for removal of this pay anomaly and in response
thereto, the order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-16) was received
wherein, it was mentioned that this pay anomaly was on account
of adverse remark in the APAR. However, in reply to the writ
petition, the respondents have changed their stance and have
claimed that the Private Secretary Ms. Tak with whom the
petitioner claims parity was, as a matter of fact, promoted to the
post of Senior Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer much
before the petitioner, who was promoted later, on account of
pendency of an inquiry against him. It was also averred in the
reply that Ms. Tak was conferred an annual grade increment on
the promotional post much prior to the petitioner and hence, the
anomaly which has arisen in the pay scales is logical and
explainable. It was contended that contradictory stands in the
order dated 11.06.2020 vis-a-vis the reply fortifies the case of the
petitioner that the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal.
Shri Balia urged that the promotion which was granted to Ms. Tak
in the year 2013 was purely adhoc in nature. The petitioner as
well as Ms. Tak were both regularly promoted to the post of Senior
(3 of 5) [CW-8619/2020]
Personal Assistant vide order dated 08.09.2015 and thus, there
cannot be any justification for difference in pay scale of the
petitioner and Ms. Tak. He placed reliance on the following Hon'ble
Supreme Court's judgment:-
1. Union of India & Ors. vs K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., reported in
AIR 1991 SC 2010
2. Gurpal Singh vs High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
reported in (2012) 13 SCC 94
& implored the Court to accept the writ petition and direct
the respondents to remove the unjust and arbitrary anomaly in
the petitioner's pay-scale with all consequential monetary benefits.
Shri Chayan Bothra, Assistant to Dr. Sachin Acharya,
learned Senior Advocate, appeared for the respondents and
supported the impugned action. Regarding the inconsistency
pointed out in the order (Annexure-16) conveyed to the petitioner
while rejecting his representation (Annexure-15) and the
pleadings in the reply, Shri Bothra submitted that it was
inadvertently conveyed in the order dated 11.06.2020 that the
pay-scale anomaly of the petitioner was on account of adverse
remark in the APAR. However, while filing reply to the writ
petition, the record was examined thoroughly and it came to light
that Ms. Tak was granted adhoc promotion as Senior PA-cum-
Judgment Writer on 20.12.2013 whereas the petitioner was facing
an inquiry and thus, he was not promoted at the same point of
time. Ms. Tak was granted an annual grade increment during the
period of her assignment as Senior PA-cum-Judgment Writer on
adhoc basis for a period of two years. However, the petitioner was
not entitled to such promotion and the annual grade increment
(4 of 5) [CW-8619/2020]
because of a pending disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner as well as
Ms.Tak were granted regular promotion vide order dated
08.09.2015 and since then, the petitioner is drawing salary
commensurate to his post. He submitted that difference in pay
being drawn by the petitioner and Ms. Tak is absolutely justified
and hence, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. He also urged
that the petitioner has approached this Court after a significant
delay and no justification has been offered for the same and thus,
the writ petition should be dismissed for laches.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material
available on record.
Manifestly, by effect of the adverse APAR, which was
recorded in the petitioner's service record between the years
2001-2003, he was granted selection grade with a deferment of
one year. However, the adverse APAR did not entail any
cumulative effect and hence, the effect thereof culminated with
the deferment of selection grade.
It is not disputed by the respondents that promotion given to
Ms. Tak in the year 2013 was purely on adhoc basis. At that time,
the petitioner was facing a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16
(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeals), Rules, 1958 read with Rule 29 of the Rajasthan High
Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 which culminated into exoneration
of the petitioner vide order dated 14.05.2015 whereafter the
petitioner was conferred regular promotion along with Ms. Tak
w.e.f. 08.09.2015. Apparently, the disciplinary inquiry having
culminated in favour of the petitioner, there is nothing adverse in
the record which could entail denial of appropriate pay scale to the
(5 of 5) [CW-8619/2020]
petitioner. Simply because Ms. Tak was granted adhoc promotion
and during her tenure on such adhoc work arrangement, she was
granted an annual grade increment cannot be a valid reason so as
to deny the same benefit to the petitioner. No sooner the
petitioner was exonerated in the disciplinary inquiry, the
respondents should have granted benefit of annual grade
increment to the petitioner as was granted to Ms. Tak albeit on
notional basis retrospectively. Once the service record was set
straight with culmination of the disciplinary inquiry, the petitioner
was unquestionably required to be brought at par with Ms. Tak in
the matter of pay-scale because the petitioner and Ms. Tak stand
on the same pedestal in the seniority list.
However, it may be mentioned here that the petitioner
approached the learned Registrar General for removal of the pay
anomaly by filing representation dated 04.12.2018 after a
significant delay of three years and thus, no retrospective benefits
can be given to him.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to remove the pay
anomaly and to bring the petitioner's pay at par with Ms. Tak. The
petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including
difference of pay etc. from 01.01.2019 onwards. For the previous
period, the petitioner shall be entitled to notional benefits only.
The writ petition is allowed in these terms. There is no orders as
to costs.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Sudhir Asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
