Ramswroop Verma vs State Of Raj
2022 Latest Caselaw 7453 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4274/2018

Ramswroop Verma S/o Shri Seva Ram, aged about 60 years,
resident of Deipol Chungi Naka, Ward No. 15, Nainwa, District
Bundi
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector Land Record, Bundi
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Archana, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

24/11/2022

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

present writ petition is decided finally.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for

seeking a direction to quash and set-aside the order dated

21.12.2017 and further prayer is for releasing the retiral benefits

in favour of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that the

petitioner was appointed as Patwari on 29.07.1983, State

Government had issued a circular dated 25.01.1992, extending

the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of

service.

4. The petitioner has pleaded that in pursuance of circular

dated 25.01.1992, he was granted benefit of first selection scale

on completion of 9 years of service vide order dated 30.07.1993

(2 of 9) [CW-4274/2018]

with effect from 30.07.1992 and accordingly his fixation was

made.

5. The petitioner has pleaded that after completion of 18 years

of service, benefit of second selection scale was granted to him

vide order dated 30.08.2002 w.e.f. 30.07.2002 and accordingly

fixation was made.

6. The petitioner has further pleaded that on completion of 27

years of service, the benefit of third selection scale was granted to

him vide order dated 13.03.2014 w.e.f. 30.07.2013 and his

fixation was also done.

7. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents issued a

promotion order, promoting him on the post of Inspector Land

Record vide order dated 07.04.2017 and thereafter on attaining

the age of superannuation, he got his retirement on 31.07.2017.

8. The petitioner has pleaded that after his retirement, he

became entitled for retiral dues and as such, when no action was

taken, the petitioner had to file representation before the

Authorities.

9. The petitioner has pleaded that instead of releasing post

retiral benefits, the respondents issued impugned order/amended

order dated 21.12.2017, wherein the date of first selection grade

of the petitioner was changed from 30.07.1992 to 30.07.1994 on

the basis of some objections to be raised by the Accounts Officer.

The said order amended the earlier order dated 30.07.1993, by

which first selection grade was to be given to the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the

impugned order, submitted that the service record of the

petitioner was considered by the respondents while granting him

(3 of 9) [CW-4274/2018]

first, second and third selection grade as per circular issued by the

Finance Department dated 21.01.1992.

11. Learned counsel submitted that in Clause 7 of the said

circular, it was provided that selection grade in terms of the order

was to be granted to those employees, whose service record was

satisfactory and record of service which made one eligible for

promotion, on the basis of seniority, was to be considered to be

satisfactory for the purpose of grant of selection grade.

12. Learned counsel submitted that the Government of

Rajasthan had also taken a decision on 11.11.1992, making effect

from 21.01.1992, whereby satisfactory service record of an

employee was to be considered on the basis of his APAR and as

such, since the petitioner did not have any adverse APAR, as such,

he was rightly given first selection grade and thereafter second

and third selection grade.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondents did not give even notice to the petitioner before

issuing order dated 21.12.2017 and straightway after retirement

of the petitioner, they issued an order which effects the benefit

which was already granted to him as well as his post retiral

benefits.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

earlier orders which were passed by the respondents themselves

had taken into account the relevant service record of the

petitioner and as such, only on the basis of some objections raised

by some Accounts Officer, the impugned order could not have

been issued.

15. Learned counsel further submitted that the Apex Court in the

case of Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1994 (6)

(4 of 9) [CW-4274/2018]

SCC 154, has laid down the law that principles of natural justice is

required to be followed before any order of reducing basic pay is

passed giving retrospective effect.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the said

judgment, submitted that in the present case also the respondents

are guilty of violating of principles of natural justice.

17. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General-Mr. Anil

Mehta submitted that the respondents have rightly issued order

dated 21.12.2017 as petitioner was not entitled to be granted the

first selection scale w.e.f. 30.07.1992.

18. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there

was a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without

cumulative effect by order dated 03.05.1984 and further there

was another penalty of censure imposed vide order dated

03.03.1986 and as such, the said punishment was to be operated

for a period of two years and accordingly the petitioner was

entitled for first selection grade w.e.f. 30.07.1994 and not from

30.07.1992.

19. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that

the earlier order which was issued by the Authorities, did not take

into account the relevant service record and if any erroneous

order was issued by the Authority, the State-employer, had every

right to rectify the mistake, committed by the officials and

accordingly the order was issued by changing the year of first

selection scale of the petitioner.

20. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that

the issue of currency of penalty while granting selection grade,

has already been considered by the Apex Court in the case of

(5 of 9) [CW-4274/2018]

State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Shankar Lal Parmar,

(2011) 14 SCC 235.

21. Learned Additional Advocate General on the strength of the

said judgment, submitted that if there was a penalty of stoppage

of one grade increment without cumulative effect and another

punishment of censure, then in view of the law laid down by the

Apex Court, the petitioner is not entitled to be given any benefit.

22. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is

no recovery order which has been passed against the petitioner

and it is only re-fixation of the petitioner in a selection scale and

as such, no right of the petitioner has been violated and

accordingly there does not seem to be any violation of principles

of natural justice as has been alleged.

23. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for

the parties and perused the material available on record.

24. This Court finds that circular dated 25.01.1992, issued by

the State Government had provided for grant of first, second and

third selection grade on completion of regular service of 9, 18 &

27 years.

25. This Court finds that at the relevant time in the year 1992, a

circular was issued as the requirement for grant of selection grade

was satisfactory record of an employee and any person which was

entitled for promotion on the basis of seniority was to be

considered, eligible having satisfactory record for the purpose of

grant of selection grade.

26. This Court finds that the said order did not contain any

Clause where the stoppage of one grade increment or censure was

treated as operating against an employee for the purpose of grant

of selection scale.

(6 of 9) [CW-4274/2018]

27. This Court finds that the State Government subsequently

issued circular whereby the effect of minor penalty was given for

the purpose of grant of selection scale and as such, the

subsequent circulars changed the position, that if any employee

was having any penalty of minor nature or major nature, the same

was to operate for a particular period.

28. This Court finds that in the present facts of the case at the

time of grant of selection scale to the petitioner, there was no such

circular which was existing to prevent the petitioner from his

entitlement to get his first selection scale.

29. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have amended the

order of grant of first selection scale of the petitioner after his

retirement and even no notice was given to him asking the

explanation.

30. This Court finds that not only the first selection scale was

given to the petitioner in the year 1993 but the petitioner also

attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2017. The action of

the respondents to revise the order of effecting the post retiral

benefits or other benefit of selection scale without giving show

cause notice to the petitioner, is not justified and same is termed

arbitrary and against the basic right of an employee.

31. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner that since the record of the petitioner at

relevant time was not having any adversity and only on account of

punishments which are sought to be imposed, the petitioner could

not have been deprived at the relevant time from the benefit of

first selection grade.

(7 of 9) [CW-4274/2018]

32. This Court also finds that the Apex Court in the case of State

of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Shankar Lal Parmar (supra) has clarified

the issue with regard to the operation of penalties or

implementation of the subsequent notification issued on

24.07.1995.

33. The Apex Court has specifically held that the State would not

be entitled to recover financial benefits already extended to the

employees pursuant to the first office order issued by the State on

25.01.1992.

34. This Court deems it proper to quote the relevant para of the

order of the Apex Court passed in the case of State of Rajasthan &

Ors. Vs. Shankar Lal Parmar (supra), which reads as under:-

"26. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the learned Judges of the Division Benches cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the same are hereby set aside and quashed. However, looking into the controversies which have been there in the State of Rajasthan since 1992, we deem it fit and proper to pass the following orders:

(i) The appellant State would not be entitled to recover financial benefits already extended to the employees, pursuant to the first office order issued by Appellant on 25-1- 1992.

(ii) The appellant State would not also be entitled to recover any amount which might have been paid to the employees even after issuance of the second clarificatory office Order/letter dated 24-7-1995 as according to us, recovery of such amount would cause great hardships to the employees.

(iii) The employees who have earned censure in the past years for their service record will not be entitled to be granted "selection grade" alongwith those who have a

(8 of 9) [CW-4274/2018]

clean and unblemished record. They would be granted "selection grade" only one year thereafter.

(iv) Any employee who has been promoted before the said period would not be entitled for the grant of "selection grade".

35. The submission of learned counsel for the State that liberty

has been granted to the State to take into account the penalty or

minor penalty and even penalty of censure in past service record

of an employee does not make him entitled to get the selection

scale, this Court finds that the said order passed by the Apex

Court does not permit the State to reopen case of the petitioner.

The Apex Court has clearly held that new circular was issued on

24.07.1995, the State Government had right to grant benefit to

the employee, according to the office order/letter dated

24.07.1995.

36. In the present facts of the case, it is an admitted position

that the petitioner was already granted benefit of first selection

grade prior to issuance of office order dated 24.07.1995 and as

such, the case of the petitioner will not be governed by the

subsequent circular which has been issued.

37. This Court finds that the respondents have also not kept in

mind the fact of superannuation of the petitioner and it is not only

shocking but surprising also that the Audit Officers/Audit Section

starts digging the post of an employee when he attains the age of

superannuation and they think that whatever has been given to

the employee at initial stage, should be reopened.

38. This Court in no way may be understood to say that the

Authorities do not have power to see complete record of an

(9 of 9) [CW-4274/2018]

employee while granting them benefits, but if the benefits are

granted to an employee about 25 years ago and employee at the

verge of retirement or after retirement gets a notice or order,

whereby his pay scale is changed, this kind of functioning of the

superior officers towards their juniors is, not justified at all.

39. This Court accordingly finds that the order dated 21.12.2017

is required to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside.

The petitioner is also entitled for first selection scale w.e.f.

30.07.1992 as was initially granted to him vide order dated

30.07.1993. The respondents are also directed to pay

consequential post retiral benefits to the petitioner as per his

selection grade which was granted to the petitioner from time to

time. The petitioner would be entitled for all arrears along with

interest @6% per annum and necessary orders may be passed by

the respondents within a period of six weeks after receipt of copy

of this order.

40. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

Ramesh Vaishnav /86

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)