Rajasthan High Court
The State Of Rajasthan vs Ameer Chand Jain Son Of Late Shri ... on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 177/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary
To The Government, Higher Education Department
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, College Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha
Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur
3. The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Ameer Chand Jain Son Of Late Shri Mool Chand Jain, Aged About
75 Years, Resident Of E-141, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Choudhary for
Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG through VC
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
17/01/2022
Counsel for the appellants submits that he has filed present
appeal against the impugned order dated 03.05.2019.
The facts stated in the present appeal pertains to the fact
that the appellants introduced Career Advancement Scheme with
effect form 01.01.1986 vide order dated 01.05.1989 for university
and government lecturers. It was further averred by the petitioner
that the scheme provides for grant of senior and selection scale
after 8 years and 16 years of service after regular appointment
respectively.
(2 of 4) [SAW-177/2021]
It was further submitted that respondent No.2 vide order
dated 08.04.2004 granted some of the librarians and PTIs
selection scale from the date it became due. The respondent
before the learned Single Judge submitted that his record was
neat and clean and in one of the adverse remarks of APAR 1989-
1990 by the department, on representation of petitioner was
expunged by order dated 12.10.1992. Considering the same the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in these terms
which are reproduced below:-
"I have heard the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
This Court finds that the only impediment, which
was said to be against the petitioner was the adverse
remarks in his APAR for the year 1989-90 and the same
was deleted by communication dt. 12th October, 1992
and as such there was no adversity in the service record
of the petitioner.
This Court finds that the Screening Committee was
not apprised with the complete service record of the
petitioner and they formed opinion only by observing
that the petitioner was not found suitable for grant of
Selection Scale on the basis of his record.
This Court finds that the respondents in their reply
have also pleaded only in respect of the adverse
remarks which were communicated to the petitioner for
the year 1989-90 and there is no mention of other
adversity in the reply filed by the respondents. This
court finds that if the adverse remarks in the APAR for
the year 1989 of the petitioner were already deleted, as
communicated to the petitioner vide letter dt. 12th
October, 1992, there was no justification to hold that
petitioner did not have the proper service record for
grant of benefit of Selection Scale.
This Court finds that the petitioner had already
stood retired on 30th April, 1996 and after lapse of
about 8 years, the meeting had taken place to consider
the grant of benefit of Senior and Selection Scale. The
Committee ought to have vigilant and should have been
appraised of the service record of employees and
without having complete inputs about service particulars
(3 of 4) [SAW-177/2021]
of the petitioner, the wrong opinion was formed for
denying Selection Scale to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
allowed and the direction is required to be given to the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to
grant him selection scale on completion of 8 years of
service in senior Scale and as such he is entitled to be
granted benefit of selection scale with effect from 1st
April, 1996.
This Court further deems it proper to direct that
the respondents should carry out the aforesaid exercise
within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order and the arrears on account of
revision of grant of Selection Scale, may be released to
the petitioner immediately and in case the said exercise
is not carried out and the benefits are not granted
within a period of five weeks, the respondents will be
liable to pay interest @ 9% per annumn from the date
of order passed by this Court. The consequential
benefits of revision of pension and post retiral benefits
will also be conferred on the petitioner."
Being aggrieved, the State has filed an appeal before the
Hon'ble Court. At the outset, counsel for the appellants-State
submits that the controversy is no more res integra in terms of
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.339/2020 (State of Rajasthan and
Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Agrawal) and other connected matters wherein
in the identical and similar facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Court
has taken following view:-
"11. The Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of
India (Supra)has specifically dealt with the issue and
has held that the ACR needs to be communicated to
the employees within a reasonable time. Since the
APAR in this case has been communicated after the
filing of the writ petitions i.e. after more than thirty
years and now directing the respondents to submit the
reply or representation would be a futile exercise, as
the respondents have retired way back. It is also
evident that since 1988, satisfactory remarks has been
made the yardstick for grant of senior/selection scale
and respondents herein have satisfactory remarks in
addition to good and outstanding, they have no
adverse remarks in their entire career, hence, we do
not find any force in the present appeals."
(4 of 4) [SAW-177/2021]
Considering the said submission, we are of the view that the
present appeal need not to be interfered and is disposed of in
above terms.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
In the light of the fact that the matter stands concluded in
terms of the Division Bench order, the application (No.99/2021)
for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
also disposed of as we have taken the matter on merits.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
B.M. Gandhi/Rajat Kumar-41
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
