Rajasthan High Court
Mahesh Chand Verma S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023:RJ-JP:31699-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8414/2021
Mahesh Chand Verma S/o Shri Damaram, Aged About 58 Years,
R/o 28, Raigaron Ka Mohalla, Krishnapuri, Hasanpura-B, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel Training, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Director, Department Of Prosecution, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
5. Assistant Director Of Prosecution, Jaipur Ii, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Udit Sharma for
Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
30/10/2023
Heard.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that this
petition may be finally disposed of in the light of order dated
25.11.2021 passed in the case of Santosh Sharma Vs. State of
Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5920/2021 and connected
petitions.
[2023:RJ-JP:31699-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-8414/2021]
The challenge is to notification dated 30.10.2017 issued by
the State Government by which the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 came to be amended. In the case of
Santosh Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. it has been
held as below:-
"In these petitions, the main controversy is
with respect to validity and legality of the
notification dated 30th October, 2017 issued by the
Government of Rajasthan, Department of Finance.
Under this notification, the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 came to be amended.
It is not necessary to go into the details of
these amendments. Suffice it to note that the
grievance of the petitioners is that by virtue of
these amendments in the revised Pay Rules, with
retrospective effect, the grade pay in several cases
have been so changed as to deprive the petitioners
of actual benefits of Assured Career Progression
Scheme. Since in some cases, the Government has
also initiated recoveries on the basis of these
amendments, the petitioners had also prayed for
interim protection. In some cases where recoveries
have commenced, the Court has protected the
petitioners. In some cases of the pensioners
recoveries in part or full may have been made.
The learned Advocate General stated that such
protection against non-petitioners has also been
ordered in cases of those persons who are affected
by these amendments.
Today, when this group of petitions was taken
up for hearing, the learned Advocate General
tendered an affidavit dated 25 th November 2021
filed by one Shri Mangi Lal, Officer-in-Charge of the
respondents, in which it is stated that the State
Government is considering all the issues with
respect to the notification and for such purpose a
Committee has been constituted under order dated
05.08.2021. The scope of this Committee involves
other issues but one of them being the question of
grant of ACP benefits to the Government
employees. It is stated that such Committee will
take into account the issues arising out the
amendments made by notification dated 30th
[2023:RJ-JP:31699-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-8414/2021]
October, 2017. According to the learned Advocate
General, this will take about three months time. Till
then, no further recoveries would be made on the
basis of the said notification.
In our opinion, when the Government, on its
own, is considering the multiple issues arising out of
the said notification, it would not be proper on our
part to examine the legality and validity of the
notification. We would therefore dispose of these
petitions with certain directions. Before issuing final
directions, we may notice that in some of the cases
of the pensioners, part or full recoveries have
already been made. These recoveries may not be
retained by the State till fresh decision is taken, of
course, subject to outcome of the decision of the
Government and further order of the Court in case
the controversy raises.
Under the circumstances, all these petitions
are disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) Let the Government reconsider the entire issue
as is stated before us. Final decision preferably may
be taken by 28th February, 2022.
(ii) After the decision is taken by the Government, if
any of the grievances of the petitioners survive, it
would be open for them to file fresh petitions.
(iii) Till fresh decision is taken, the State
Government shall not make any further recovery on
the basis of the notification dated 30th October,
2017.
(iv) Recoveries already made from the pensioners
would be refunded, subject to final decision of the
Government, subject to further challenge.
We are informed that in some of the petitions
additional issues have also been raised. None of
these issues would get affected by this order. It
would be open for the petitioners to file an
independent petition, as may be advised subject to
all objections of the Government which are kept
open.
All pending applications are also disposed of."
Learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that
subsequently a memorandum dated 27.02.2022 came to be
issued which has again modified the earlier provision.
[2023:RJ-JP:31699-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-8414/2021]
In view of the above submission, while taking decision on
petitioner's case in the light of the judgment in the case of
Santosh Sharma, the authority shall also keep the subsequent
memorandum dated 27.02.2022.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
49-SURAJ KUMAR
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
