R S R T C And Anr vs Sant Lal Sharma ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4932 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:23242]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 23/2018

1.        Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through
          Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2.        Chief      Manager,       Rajasthan          State        Road   Transport
          Corporation, Tijara Depot, Alwar Rajasthan
                                                    ----Appellants-Respondents

Versus Sant Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Sharma, aged 55 years, R/o Gram And Post Shahbad, Tehsil Tijara, Distt. Alwar, Conductor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Tijara Depot, Alwar Rajasthan

----Plaintiff-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.M. Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Yadav with Ms. Kanta Devi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

15/09/2023

This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment

and decree dated 01.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan (for brevity, "the learned

Appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.71/2017 whereby,

while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants-

defendants (for brevity, "the defendants"), the judgment dated

23.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.2,

Jaipur Metropolitan (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") partly

decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for brevity,

"the plaintiff") for declaration, has been affirmed.

[2023:RJ-JP:23242] (2 of 6) [CSA-23/2018]

The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for

declaration against the defendants stating therein that he was

appointed as permanent Conductor by the defendant-Corporation

in the year 1977 and vide order dated 05.07.1998, he was

granted regular pay scale. It was averred that his services were

terminated vide order dated 28.07.1982, which was set aside by

the learned Court in a civil suit filed by him and ultimately, this

Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 17.09.2002 passed in

civil second appeal, directed benefit of back wages from the

decree dated 14.12.1989 passed by the learned trial Court. He

submitted that in pursuance of a Circular dated 25.01.1992 issued

by the State Government and adopted by the defendant-

corporation, he was entitled for the benefit of first, second and

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

respectively. It was alleged that instead of granting him benefit of

first selection scale from 25.01.1992 and second selection scale

w.e.f 05.07.1996, the defendants have extended the same w.e.f

15.07.2000 and 23.09.2011 respectively and he has not been paid

benefit of Assured Carrier Progression (for brevity "ACP") on

completion of 27 years of service in lieu of the third selection scale

grade on account of implementation of 6 th Pay Commission despite

completion of 34 years of service. Therefore, the decree as

aforesaid was prayed for.

The defendants in their joint written statement submitted

that the plaintiff has been paid benefit of first and second selection

scale w.e.f. 15.07.2000 and 23.09.2011 respectively on account of

his bad service record. It was further stated that he was

[2023:RJ-JP:23242] (3 of 6) [CSA-23/2018]

disentitled for the benefit of ACP for the same reason. Dismissal of

the suit, therefore, was prayed for.

On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial

Court framed seven issues. After recording evidence of the

respective parties, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit

vide judgment dated 23.02.2017 whereby, the plaintiff was held

entitled for the benefit of first selection scale w.e.f 25.01.1992 as

claimed; but, was held entitled for the benefit of second selection

scale w.e.f. 05.07.2007 instead of 05.07.1996 on account of

stoppage of 10 annual grade increments in the intervening period.

The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendants has

been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment

dated 01.11.2017.

Assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated

01.11.2017, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel

for the defendants is that as per the Circulars of the corporation

dated 24.04.1994 & 07.05.1998 issued by the defendant-

corporation, its employees having bad service record are

disentitled for the benefit of selection scale. He submits that since,

the plaintiff did not have a clean service record, he was disentitled

for the benefit of first and second selection scale prior to the date

the benefit was extended by the corporation. He, therefore,

prayed that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and

decree dated 01.11.2017 be quashed and set aside and the suit

be dismissed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff, supporting the

findings recorded by the learned Courts, would submit that there

are concurrent findings of facts which require no interference by

[2023:RJ-JP:23242] (4 of 6) [CSA-23/2018]

this Court under its second appellate jurisdiction. He, therefore,

prays for dismissal of the civil second appeal.

Heard. Considered.

While deciding the issues no.1, 2 & 3 pertaining to

entitlement of the plaintiff for grant of selection scales and ACP,

the learned trial Court has, after appreciating oral as well as

documentary evidence on record and relying upon the Circulars

dated 15.02.1997, 18.10.1997 & 24.09.2001 as also judgments of

this Court in the cases of Nathulal Sharma Vs. RSRTC Jaipur &

Ors.: 2009(5) WLC (Raj.)232 and State & Anr. Vs. Bheem

Singh: 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC Pg.8, held that minor punishment

except the penalty of stoppage of annual grade increment would

not come in way of grant of selection scale to an employee of the

Corporation. It was held that though the plaintiff completed 9

years of service as on 05.07.1987, the selection scale would get

deferred by one year as he was awarded a penalty of stoppage of

one annual grade increment in the intervening period vide

punishment dated 01.04.1979 (Ex.D-1). However, it was held that

since, the corporation has awarded benefit of first selection scale

to all its employees w.e.f. 25.01.1992, the plaintiff would also be

entitled for the same from that date and not from 05.07.1988.

With regard to his entitlement for grant of second selection

scale, after holding that it fell due in the year 1997; but, on

account of imposition of various penalties amounting to stoppage

of 10 annual grade increments in all in the meanwhile, it would

get extended accordingly, the learned trial Court held him entitled

for its grant from 05.07.2007. It was held that although the

defendant's witness Shri Hari Krishan Saini (DW-1) has admitted

[2023:RJ-JP:23242] (5 of 6) [CSA-23/2018]

during his cross-examination that the plaintiff would be entitled

for grant of second selection scale w.e.f 1997; but, it was

extended by ten years taking into consideration the penalties of

stoppage of annual grade increments awarded to him. A co-

ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Nathulal Sharma

(supra), involving identical controversy, held that selection scale of

an employee of the corporation would get extended by the period

he was awarded stoppage of annual grade increments.

Contention of the learned counsel for the defendants based

on the Circulars dated 24.04.1994 and 07.05.1998 does not merit

acceptance. No such Circulars were exhibited before the learned

trial Court as also before the learned Appellate Court. Even

otherwise also, taking into consideration the Circulars issued by

the defendant-corporation from time to time, i.e., 15.02.1997,

18.10.1997 and 24.09.2001, the plaintiff was held entitled for the

grant of first and second selection scale w.e.f. 25.01.1992 and

05.07.2007 respectively. Even otherwise also, a Division Bench of

this Court has, in case of State & Anr. (supra), held as under:

"4. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Single Judge at page 3 has allowed the writ petition in the manner allowed by following the said decision in Devi Singh's case, and a subsequent judgment Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 4865/2003 decided on 3.1.2007 also. In Devi Singh's case it has been held that for entitlement to the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9 years of service, the punishment of censure would not come in the way of the employee as giving of selection scale does not involve any selection on

[2023:RJ-JP:23242] (6 of 6) [CSA-23/2018]

merits. In the present case the employee was otherwise entitled to selection scale w.e.f. 5.1.2000 but was given the same w.e.f. 5.1.2003 on account of the fact that the employee suffered one punishment of censure in the year 1994, and another punishment of censure in 1995, and also one punishment of withholding of one grade increment without cumulative effect in the year 1995 on 31.8.1995.

5. The learned Single Judge, in view of the above held that since punishment of censure cannot come in the way of grant of selection scale, however, the punishment of withholding of annual grade increment does come in the way. Therefore, the selection scale has been ordered to be granted w.e.f. 5.1.2001 instead of 5.1.2003, so also instead of 5.1.2000."

In view of the aforesaid findings and the precedential law, in

the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Courts did not err

in partly decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

Since, learned counsel for the defendants have not been able

to satisfy this Court that the concurrent findings of facts recorded

by the learned Courts suffer from any illegality, infirmity,

perversity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference of

this Court under Section 100 CPC, the civil second appeal is

dismissed being devoid of merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/98

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)