Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satya Narain vs State And Ors. (2024:Rj-Jd:281) on 3 January, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:281]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1308/2005
Satya Narain
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
03/01/2024
Petition herein is directed against an order dated 21.12.2004
(Annex.4) passed by the Accounts Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur,
vide which the second selection Grade granted to the petitioner on
completion of 18 years of service was withdrawn. It was also
ordered to cause recovery of the amount already paid to him by
virtue of the earlier according of the selection grade.
2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.
2.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Nakedar in
the Municipal Board, Nagaur. However, due to the abolition of the
octroi duty, he was declared surplus. Subsequently, he was
absorbed in the Panchayat Raj Department, in accordance with
Rule 265, 270, and 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Rules of
1996, as per the circular dated 01.10.2001 (Annex.1).
2.2. The petitioner was posted in Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur on
the post of Gram Sewak & Secretary, Gram Panchayat under
[2024:RJ-JD:281] (2 of 4) [CW-1308/2005]
Panchayat Samiti Nagaur vide an order dated 10.01.2003 (Annex.
2).
2.3. On completion of 9 years of satisfactory service, the
petitioner was awarded First Selection Grade. Likewise, on
completion of 18 years of service, the petitioner was granted
Second Selection Grade vide an order dated 17.06.2004.
2.4. However, the second selection Grade granted to the petitioner
on completion of 18 years of service was cancelled and vide
impugned order dated 21.12.2004 (Annex.4), recovery of the
amount already paid to him was also directed. Aggrieved,
petitioner prefers this writ petition.
3. From the aforesaid narrative, it boils down that the controversy
herein is centered around a very narrow compass i.e. whether the
petitioner is entitled to selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and
27 years of service ?
4. Without further ado, it appears to be an open and shut case.
The issue raised in the present writ petition is no more res-integra
in view of judgment rendered in the case of a similarly situated
counterpart of the petitioner namely Ashok Kumar. A co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6401/2011 titled
as Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors held the
action of the respondents as not sustainable. The relevant extract
of the judgment, ibid is reproduced herein below:
"19. In view of the discussion above, in considered
opinion of this court, the petitioners absorption shall be
governed by clause 2 of the circular dated 2.10.10
issued by the State Government and not by clause 5-
Ga as sought to be clarified vide order dated 23.5.11.
Thus, the clarification issued vide clause 3 of order
dated 23.5.11 and the resolution adopted by the Zila
Parishads, pursuant thereto, reviewing its earlier
decision grating regular pay scale to the petitioners and
[2024:RJ-JD:281] (3 of 4) [CW-1308/2005]
their likes from the date of their joining the duties on
the post of Gram Sevak and deferring the benefit of
regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak
till they complete ten years of service on the post of
Gram Sevak, are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
20. There is yet another aspect of the matter.
Indisputably, the petitioners were regular employees of
the Spinfed/Cotton Complex and they having been
declared surplus were absorbed on the post of Gram
Sevak pursuant to the decision taken by the State
Government in conformity with the Rules of 1996 an
the Rules of 1969 and therefore, on their
absorption/appointment by transfer on the equated
post of Gram Sevak in various Panchayati Raj
Institutions, they have to be treated regular employees
and since they are discharging the duties of the post of
Gram Sevak, there is absolutely no reason as to why
theys hould be denied the payment of salary in the
regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak
from the date of their initial appointment ignoring the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
21. In the result, the writ petitioner succeed, the same
are hereby allowed. The guidelines laid down by the
State Government clarifying the circular dated
02.10.10, as contained in clause 3 of the order dated
23.5.11 providing for the benefits regular pay scale
admissible to the post of Gram Sevak to the surplus
employees of Spinfed/Cotton Complex
absorbed/appointed by transfer on the post of Gram
Sevak, on completion of ten years of service in terms of
clause 5-Ga of circular dated 02.10.10 instead of from
the date of their joining on the post in terms of clause 2
of the said circular dated02.10.10 is held to be illegal
and quashed. Consequently the resolutions adopted by
the District Establishment Committee/Zila Parishads in
compliance of the clarification issued by the State and
the orders issued pursuant thereto, withdrawing the
regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak,
already granted to the petitioners and directing
recovery of the excess amount paid are also quashed.
The orders issued by the Zila Parishad/Panchayat
Samitees concerned extending the benefit of regular
pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak to the
petitioners with effect from the date of their joining the
duties are restored. No order as to costs."
4. I am in respectful agreement with the view held by the
learned single Judge, as above. I see no reason as to why the
benefit of the same be not accorded to the petitioner herein who
[2024:RJ-JD:281] (4 of 4) [CW-1308/2005]
concededly stands on the same footing as his counterpart in the
above judgment.
5. The only difference being, that the petitioner had impugned
the recovery order passed against him vide the instant writ
petition, whereas, his counterpart in the above judgment chose to
challenge the withdrawal/non grant of the selection grade
subsequent to the causing of recovery.
6. Be that as it may, once the benefit of selection grade has
been granted to the counterpart vide judgment, ibid, it is
irrelevant whether recovery was caused or yet to be caused, as in
the case of petitioner, by virtue of an interim stay granted by this
Court. In fact, granting of interim protection is suggestive that
there was prima facie case in favor of petitioner,
7. The petition is thus allowed in the same terms as the
judgment in Ashok Kumar supra. The impugned order is set aside
with consequences to follow.
(ARUN MONGA), J
72-divyaP/-
Whether fit for reporting - Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
