Poosa Ram vs State And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1728 Raj

[2023/RJJD/002972]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13131/2016

Poosa Ram S/o Shri Gokul Ram, Village Sangawas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture And Gardening, Agriculture Directorate, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Assistant Director, Agriculture Extension, Department Of Agriculture, Pali.

4. The Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14145/2016 Sukhdev Gwala S/o Sh. Udaram, Banja Kuri, Tehsil Jaitaran, Dist. Pali, through LRs

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Director, Department Of Agriculture And Gardening, Agriculture Directorate, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. The Assistant Director, Agriculture Extension, Department Of Agriculture, Pali.

4. The Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur.

                                                    ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate
                                assisted by Dr. Shanti Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. M.C. Bishinoi, GC.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 30/01/2023 Pronounced on 14/02/2023

1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

[2023/RJJD/002972] (2 of 10) [CW-13131/2016]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13131/2016:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.8,000- 13,5000 w.e.f. 27.10.1992 in pursuance of the order dated 27.06.1998 (Annex.3) and accordingly the basic pay on the date of retirement may be fixed at Rs.10,200/- with all consequential benefits, like arrears etc.;

(ii) the respondents may kindly be granted compound interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed payment of his retiral benefits w.e.f.01.12.2000;

(iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice; and

(iv) cost of litigation may also kindly be ordered to be awarded to the petitioner."

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14145/2016:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.8,000-

13,5000 w.e.f. 28.05.1989 in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.2015 (Annex.5) and accordingly the basic pay on the date of retirement may be fixed with

[2023/RJJD/002972] (3 of 10) [CW-13131/2016]

all consequential benefits, including arrears with interest;

(ii) the respondents may kindly be granted compound interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed payment of his retiral benefits w.e.f.01.12.2000;

(iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice; and

(iv) cost of litigation may also kindly be ordered to be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Since both the instant petitions involve a common

controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual

facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous

adjudication, the facts are being taken from the above-numbered

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13131/2016, while treating the same as

a lead case.

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.G.R.

Punia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. Shanti Choudhary,

appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are that the petitioner was

appointed as Field Supervisor (Soil Conservation) in the erstwhile

Department of Soil Conservation (now, Agriculture Department)

vide order dated 12.10.1965 in the pay scale of Rs.75-160,

pursuant whereto he joined his duty, and the petitioner

subsequently, was confirmed on the post of Field-man. However,

the nomenclature of the post of Field-man (Soil Conservation) was

changed to Agriculture Supervisor.

[2023/RJJD/002972] (4 of 10) [CW-13131/2016]

3.1 The Directorate of Agriculture, vide circular dated

23.05.1998 has prescribed the selection scales on completion of 9,

18 & 27 years of service in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil

Services Amended Scale Rules, 1998. As per the said circular, the

pay scale, as existing at the relevant time, of Rs.2000-3200, was

revised to Rs.6500-10500 under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1998, and

the corresponding selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27

years of service was revised to Rs.5500-9000, Rs.6500-10500 &

Rs.8000-13500, respectively.

3.2 In the year 1998, the petitioner was posted in the office of

Assistant Agriculture Engineer, Water Resources Development and

Soil Conservation Unit, Jaitaran, District Pali, and accordingly, the

benefit of all selection grades were extended to him, in time, and

lastly, selection grade on completion of 27 years of service was

also extended to him alongwith other incumbents

w.e.f.27.10.1992 and his pay was fixed at Rs.8,275/- w.e.f.

01.09.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.8500-13500 by fixation order

dated 27.07.1998.

3.3 The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under Rule 50

of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Rules of 1996') w.e.f. 30.11.2000; at that time, the

basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.9,100/-; an office order dated

17.10.2000 was passed, retiring the petitioner voluntarily

w.e.f.30.11.2000, and consequential order was also issued by the

respondent-Assistant Director Agriculture (Extension), Pali on

02.11.2000. Vide order dated 07.11.2000, the respondent-

Assistant Director has accorded sanction for payment of leave

[2023/RJJD/002972] (5 of 10) [CW-13131/2016]

encashment for a period of 297 days on the petitioner's basic pay

of Rs.9,100/-.

3.4 The petitioner stood retired voluntarily under Rule 50 of the

Rules of Pension Rules w.e.f. 30.11.2000 and all his retiral dues

were sanctioned on his retirement, but no retiral benefits including

pension were actually given by the respondent-Department, and

therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on

12.02.2001 before the respondent-Assistant Director Agriculture

(Extension) Pali, which was replied stating that since the petitioner

was not having the qualification in Agriculture subject, therefore,

the benefit of pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 was wrongly extended

to the petitioner, though he was not entitled for the same as per

the relevant circular issued by the Directorate. Thus, the

petitioner's pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 on completion of 27 years

of service was sought to be reduced to Rs.6500-10500, that too,

without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and

also without prior information in that regard.

3.5 The Association of Agriculture Supervisors (Non-Agriculture

Subject) filed a writ petition bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.5108/1998 (All Rajasthan Agriculture Supervisors Association

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) before this Hon'ble Court, at Jaipur

Bench, wherein an interim order was passed by the Hon'ble Court;

accordingly, after passing of the said interim order, the payments

of gratuity and commutation etc. and the provisional pension were

sanctioned. The respondent-Joint Director, Pension and Pensioners

Welfare Department, Jodhpur informed the Director, Pension and

Pensioners Welfare Department, Jaipur about the pension case of

[2023/RJJD/002972] (6 of 10) [CW-13131/2016]

the petitioner vide communication dated 27.03.2002 to the effect

that since the case of Agriculture Supervisors relating to fixation in

the higher grade and recovery was pending before the Hon'ble

High Court, therefore, the provisional pension was sanctioned.

3.5.1 Accordingly, the PPO for provisional pension of the

petitioner was ordered to be issued by the Directorate of Pension

and Pension Welfare Department vide communication dated

19.04.2002; however, the demands of other retiral benefits i.e.

gratuity, commutation etc. were withheld.

3.6 The petitioner again represented before the respondent-

Department for payment of his retiral benefits on the existing pay

scale subject to final outcome of the aforementioned writ petition;

however, the respondent-Assistant Director, vide communication

dated 13.08.2002, has informed the petitioner that his case has

been processed and instructions have been sought from the State

Government; accordingly, he shall be informed on receipt of the

same.

3.6.1 Since the petitioner did not receive any communication

from the respondents in regard to payment of his retiral dues,

taking into consideration the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 during

pendency of the aforementioned writ petition, therefore, he again

filed representations in that regard on 12.09.2002 and 09.10.2002

requesting for payment of his retiral benefits while treating his pay

scale as Rs.6500-10500, pending decision of this Hon'ble Court.

3.6.2 Vide communication dated 26.10.2002, the petitioner

was informed that in view of pendency of the case before this

Hon'ble Court in the aforementioned writ petition, no proceedings

[2023/RJJD/002972] (7 of 10) [CW-13131/2016]

with regard to payment of his retiral benefits can be undertaken.

However, the respondents again sought direction from the higher

authorities for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner vide

communication dated 29.10.2003.

4. This Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench has allowed the said writ

on 09.07.2104; whereafter, the State Government preferred

Special Leave Petition (C) No.18028/2014 before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 02.02.2015; the State

Government in compliance of the same, restored the fixation of

the selection grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service,

pursuant to the earlier circular of the Department dated

23.05.1998, vide order dated 15.10.2015.

4.1. The respondent-Assistant Director, Agriculture (Extension),

Pali vide order dated 28.10.2015 informed the respondent- Joint

Director, that he maintained the fixation of the petitioner in the

pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- and the last pay drawn, as

Rs.9,100/-. Thereafter, subsequent to the retirement of the

petitioner, the respondent has prepared the PPO as on 01.03.2016

and the same was deposited in the petitioner's bank account on

16.06.2016 without any interest, against the delay caused by the

respondents in processing the case of the petitioner. The

respondents vide order dated 28.10.2015, the benefits of all the

three grades have been given w.e.f. 01.09.1996 in place of

27.10.1992.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners submitted various representations in regard to interest

on the delayed payment of retiral dues, as per Rule 89 of the

[2023/RJJD/002972] (8 of 10) [CW-13131/2016]

Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, and therefore, as

per said Rule, the petitioners are entitled for interest @ 9% per

annum, on the delayed payment.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the

respondents have committed illegality in granting the third

selection scale from 01.09.1996 instead of 27.10.1992 &

28.05.1989 respectively. He further submitted that the

respondents have also not granted the actual pay-scale, and

interest on delayed payments, which is a clear violation of the

provisions of law.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents,

while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the

petitioners, submitted that vide order dated 15.10.2015, the

respondents have revised the pension, which has been released to

the petitioners along with other due benefits. He further submitted

that a bare perusal of the aforementioned orders of this Hon'ble

Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, clearly reveals that there

was no direction to pay the interest against the so called delayed

payments, as claimed by the petitioners herein.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that

the respondents restored the benefits of all three grades and

granted the benefits to the petitioners, and therefore the

petitioners were not entitled to any further benefits.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

[2023/RJJD/002972] (9 of 10) [CW-13131/2016]

10. This Court finds that the petitioners were appointed on the

post of Field Supervisor (Soil Conservation) in the years 1995 &

1962 respectively, and in compliance of the order of Hon'ble

Supreme Court as well this Hon'ble Court, the respondents vide

order dated 15.10.2015 restored fixation of the selection grades

on completion of 9, 18, 27 years of service, and fixation of the

petitioners was to be retained in the pay-scale of Rs.8,000-

13,500, as per the last pay drawn w.e.f.01.06.1996; therefore all

the benefits and due payments were given petitioners, as per the

aforesaid pay scale.

11. This Court further finds that the act of the respondents in

restoring the pay-scales and granting all the benefits of that pay-

scale w.e.f. 01.06.1996 was in accordance with law. As per the

order dated 15.10.2015, the respondents have complied with the

orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this

Hon'ble Court.

11.1 This Court also finds from the record that against an order

passed by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in D.B. Civil

Special Appeal (Writ) No. 463/2005 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs.

Bajrang Singh Rathore & Ors.), decided on 30.04.2014, a Special

Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18028/2014 was preferred before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 02.02.2015,

wherein the Hon'ble Courts did not give any direction with regard

to payment of interest, as claimed by the petitioners herein.

12. Thus, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the

present case and the material placed on the record, this Court

[2023/RJJD/002972] (10 of 10) [CW-13131/2016]

does not find any case to be made out so as to warrant any

interference by this Court.

13. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All

pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)