Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chetan Prakash Sen vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 December, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:41490]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4318/2019
Chetan Prakash Sen S/o Shri Madan Lal Sen, Aged About 63
Years, R/o City Police, Naiyon Ka Chowk, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Education
Department (Group-2), Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Department Of Education,
Bikaner.
3. Joint Director, Pension Department, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Darshan Jain.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar.
Mr. Ravi Panwar.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 01/12/2023
Pronounced on 08/12/2023
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, on behalf of the petitioner, humbly
and respectfully prayed that the Writ Petition filed by the
petitioner may kindly be allowed and -
(1) By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondent
department be directed to upgraded the salary of petitioner
for the post of Principal as per rules of 2005 and pay the
same for the period he has worked with 18% interest.
(2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may
kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
[2023:RJ-JD:41490] (2 of 6) [CW-4318/2019]
(3) Costs of this Writ Petition may kindly be awarded in
favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before by the learned
counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner was working on
the post of Principal under the Department of Education,
whereafter, he was selected by the Department for the post of
Principal in District Institute of Education & Training (DIET),
Jodhpur on 07.08.2008, as per the Rajasthan Civil Services
(District Education and Training Institute of Principal, Vice
Principal, Senior Lecturer and Lecturer Special Selection and
Special Condition) Rules, 2005 (hereafter referred to as 'Rules of
2005').
2.1. The petitioner joined the aforesaid post on 12.08.2008. As
per the petitioner, since he was selected as per the Rules of 2005,
therefore, he was entitled for salary in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-
15200, but the department did not pay him salary, as per the said
pay scale, and the petitioner was allowed to run in the pay scale,
which he was granted while working on the earlier post under the
Department of Education.
2.2. Thereafter, the State Government revised the salary as per
the 6th pay recommendation by framing the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules of 2008'), but the petitioner's pay scale was inappropriately
revised as per the Rules of 2008, by treating his existing pay scale
as Rs.9000-14,400/-.
[2023:RJ-JD:41490] (3 of 6) [CW-4318/2019]
2.3 In such circumstances, the petitioner approached the
respondents seeking correction in the revised pay scale and also
served a legal notice dated 24.10.2018; the respondents no.3
replied vide letter dated 16.11.2018 and stated that as per the 7 th
Pay Commission, revised P.P.O has been issued. Since the
grievance of the petitioner was not appropriately redressed by the
respondents, therefore, the present petition has been preferred
claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner worked as Principal at DIET from 12.08.2008 to
12.07.2013, and towards such services for the said period, the
petitioner is entitled to get salary as per the pay scale of
Rs.10000-15200 which was later on revised to the pay scale of Rs.
15600-39100 + Rs.6600, but the respondents did not follow the
procedure as prescribed in the Rules of 2005.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is
entitled for getting the pay scale as per the Rules of 2005 but the
respondents did not pay the same, and therefore, the petitioner
has been continuously facing financial loss every month. It was
also submitted that the petitioner retired from the post of Deputy
Director on 31.08.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation,
without getting his legitimate grievance redressed by the
respondents.
3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the employees who
have been selected as per the Rules of 2005, are entitled to get
the salary for the post as per the Rules at the time of selection. It
was also submitted that the refusal to grant the appropriate pay
[2023:RJ-JD:41490] (4 of 6) [CW-4318/2019]
scale as per the Rules of 2005 to the petitioner is a clear violation
of the Constitution of India.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was
selected as Principal at DIET vide order dated 07.08.2008 and it
was not a promotion order because the promotion order was
passed in pursuance of the recommendations of the DPC, and
therefore the said posting order was only an outcome of certain
administrative exigency.
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the Rules of 2005
provide for payment of salary as per the pay scale of 10000-
15200 to the candidates who are being promoted by regular mode
to the post in question, however, the petitioner was substantively
working on the post in question, and thus, the subsequent
selection of the petitioner on the post of Principal at DIET cannot
be said to be a promotion.
4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the present petition is
also not maintainable because there is an alternative remedy of
appeal available to the petitioner before the learned Rajasthan
Civil Services Appellate Tribunal under the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1979.
4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was
posted in year 2008 and he remained posted as such till
12.07.2013, and after a belated stage, he filed the present writ
petition without explaining the same, and therefore, the present
petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
[2023:RJ-JD:41490] (5 of 6) [CW-4318/2019]
4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner's
candidature has been considered by the DPC for the year 2016-17
and he was granted promotion to the post of School Lecturer, and
therefore, on that count also, the present petition is liable to
dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the petitioner was working on the
post of Principal in the Department of Education and thereafter,
petitioner was selected by the Department for the post of Principal
in DIET, Jodhpur on 07.08.2008, as per the Rules, 2005.
Thereafter, as per the petitioner, the respondents did not pay him
the salary as per the Rules, 2005. Further, as per the petitioner,
subsequently, the State Government revised the salary as per the
Rules of 2008, but the petitioner's pay scale was revised
inappropriately by the respondents.
7. This Court further observes that the selection of the
petitioner as Principal in DIET, Jodhpur was not a promotion of the
petitioner on the said post. There was also no recommendation on
the part of the respondents for promoting the petitioner on the
said post.
7.1. This Court also observes that originally, the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School in the
pay scale of 9000-14400, whereafter he was selected on the post
of Principal in DIET, which was nothing but the outcome of certain
administrative exigency. Moreover, there is also nothing on record
which could reflect any recommendation of the Department
[2023:RJ-JD:41490] (6 of 6) [CW-4318/2019]
Promotion Committee (DPC) for any promotion of the petitioner.
Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in
eye of law.
8. This Court further observes that there is a proper procedure
for the promotion i.e. issuance of seniority list, inviting of
objections and issuance of final seniority list etc. In the present
case, the petitioner was selected for the post in question and it
was not a promotion order. This Court also observes that because
the respondents did not promote the petitioner on the post in
question, he was not entitled for the promotional pay scale as
provided under the Rules of 2005.
9. This Court further observes that the petitioner was selected
in the year 2008 and he remained on the post in question till
12.07.2013, and now the petitioner has approached this Court
after a huge and inordinate delay without giving any sufficient
reason for the same.
10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a
fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present
petition.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
