Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mainudeen vs The Reg. Co-Operative Soc. And Anr on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7021/2018
Yuvraj Didel S/o Shri Ramdev Didel, By caste Jat R/o Roll Tehsil
Jayal District Nagaur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Nehru Sahkar
Bhawan, 22-Godown Circle, Jaipur
2. The Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nagaur
through its Managing Director.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7022/2018
Parma Ram S/o Shri Mangla Ram, R/o Village Post Bikhaniya
Tehsil Degana District Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Nehru Sahkar
Bhawan, 22-Godown Circle, Jaipur
2. The Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nagaur
Through Its Managing Director.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7025/2018
Bhura Ram S/o Shri Ramdeen, By Caste Jat R/o Village Post
Davoli Mithi Tehsil Degana District Nagaur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Nehru Sahkar
Bhawan, 22-Godown Circle, Jaipur
2. The Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nagaur
Through Its Managing Director.
----Respondents
(2 of 5) [CW-7021/2018]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7026/2018
Mainudeen S/o Shri Subrat Ali, By caste Muslim R/o Village Post
Gachhipura Tehsil Makrana District Nagaur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Nehru Sahkar
Bhawan, 22-Godown Circle, Jaipur
2. The Nagaur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Nagaur
Through Its Managing Director.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7027/2018
Lalaram S/o Shri Bena Ram, By caste Regar R/o Village Post
Maroth Tehsil Nawa District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sahkar
Bhawan, 22-Godown Circle, Jaipur
2. The Nagaur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Nagaur
Through Its Managing Director.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7716/2018
Moolchand Gurjar S/o Shri Ramnarayan, By caste Gurjar R/o
Village Post 7/142, Kk Colony, Basni, Jodhpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Nehru Sahkar
Bhawan, 22-Godown Circle, Jaipur
2. The Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nagaur
Through Its Managing Director.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Harish Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore
Mr. Tej Singh Rathore
(3 of 5) [CW-7021/2018]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
13/07/2022
The present petitions have been filed with the prayer to fix
the basic salary of the petitioners according to the prevailing
provisions under Rule 26-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951
and for grant of further consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment
passed in S.B.C.W.P. No.6996/2014 (Amar Singh Vs. The
Jalore Central Cooperative bank Ltd. Vs. Anr.) decided on
17.10.2016 and further affirmed by the Division Bench in
D.B.S.A.W. No.433/2017 (The Jalore Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd. Vs. Amar Singh & Anr.) decided on 18.07.2017. In
Amar Singh's case (supra) it was held as under :
"As a consequence of the discussion made herein
above, I am of the firm opinion that the action of
the respondent bank in treating the petitioners'
appointment on the post of Loan Supervisors to
be by way of direct recruitment rather than by
way of promotion from the cadre of PACS
Manager is totally unjust, illegal and contrary to
the statutory orders governing the selections.
This Court has no hesitation in holding that the
petitioners' selection as Loan Supervisors in the
Bank was definitely by way of promotion.
Now coming to the second aspect of the
matter i.e. the claim of the petitioners for being
granted higher pay scale as compared to what
they were drawing as PACS Managers. Suffice it
to say that as per principles of administrative
law, promotion without consequent upgradation
in salary is incomprehensible. Admittedly, pay
scales admissible to Loan Supervisors upon
promotion from the post of PACS Managers are
not stipulated in the statutory orders. Thus,
indisputably, their pay scales upon promotion are
required to be governed by Rule 26A of RSR"
(4 of 5) [CW-7021/2018]
It was further observed in Amar Singh's case (supra) as
under :
"As a consequence of the above discussion, the
writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are
directed to upgrade the basic pay of the
petitioners in accordance with Rule 26A of the
RSR by applying the said rule in letter and spirit.
The petitioners shall also be entitled to
consequential monetary benefits flowing from
the above direction. The entire exercise as
directed above shall be completed within a
period of six months, failing which the accrued
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum."
Learned counsel for the respondents conceded to the finding
so far as the promotion of the candidates from the post of
Managers PACS to Loan Supervisors is considered to be a
promotion and not a direct recruitment. However, he submitted
that so far as the second issue is concerned, as the present Bank
has not adopted the Rajasthan Service Rules, the said ratio as laid
down in Amar Singh's case (supra) pertaining to the promotions
would not apply to the present petitioners.
I have gone through the judgments as passed in Amar
Singh's case (supra). In the same, the issue - "Whether in
absence of any statutory order, the RSR would apply or not?" has
been specifically considered and dealt with and it had been
specifically held as under :
"Admittedly, pay scales admissible to Loan
Supervisors upon promotion from the post of
PACS Managers are not stipulated in the
statutory orders. Thus, indisputably, their pay
scales upon promotion are required to be
governed by Rule 26A of RSR"
In view of the specific finding in Amar Singh's case
(supra), this Court is of the clear opinion that the said issue was
(5 of 5) [CW-7021/2018]
raised, considered, dealt with and decided in the said matter
therefore, the same issue cannot be considered again by this
Court as Amar Singh's judgment has already been affirmed by the
Division Bench.
In view of the above observations, the present writ petitions
are allowed. The respondents are directed to upgrade the basic
pay of the petitioners in terms of the provisions of Rule 26-A of
the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. All the consequential benefits
would follow.
The respondents are directed to comply with the order within
a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
52-57/AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
