Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dharma Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:1138]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15444/2024
Dharma Ram S/o Shri Gordhan Ram, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Vpo Huddo Ki Dhani, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health
Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Circle Barmer, Barmer (Raj.).
4. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Subdivision Baytu, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KR Vaghela
Mr. Jayesh Chaudhari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. PS Chundawat
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/01/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Balmukund
Tiwari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.5543/2015) decided on 06.07.2017.
2. In the case of Balmukund Tiwari (supra), this Court has held
thus:-
12. Indisputably, in the cadre of Pump
Operator III, the petitioner was senior than
Shri Mohd. Salim. Admittedly, the petitioner
being senior to Shri Mohd. Salim was
[2025:RJ-JD:1138] (2 of 3) [CW-15444/2024]
promoted to the post of Pump Operator II
on 6.10.80 and then to the post of Pump
Operator I w.e.f. 1.4.90. It was only a
fortuitous circumstances that after the
promotion of the petitioner to the post of
Pump Driver II, the post of Pump Driver III
was abolished and all the persons holding
the post of Pump Driver III were absorbed
on the post of Pump Driver II w.e.f.
31.8.86. The first and second selection
grades on completion of 9 and 18 years of
service in terms of Government order dated
25.1.92 were not admissible to the
petitioner inasmuch as, he had already
availed two promotions but Shri Mohd.
Salim, who was junior to the petitioner in
the cadre of Pump Operator III as also
Pump Operator II but did not earn any
promotion, was granted first and second
selection grade on completion of 9 and 18
years of service. It is not disputed that on
the grant of second selection grade to
Mohd. Salim so as to remove the anomaly
occurred in the pay of the petitioner vis-a-
vis Shri Mohd. Salim, invoking the
provisions of Rule 32 of RSR, the petitioner
was given the benefit of stepping up of his
pay to
Rs.1200/- as on 25.1.92 with the next
increment on 25.1.93. In
this view of the matter, there is absolutely
no reason as to why
the petitioner should not be extended the
benefits of stepping up to remove the
anomaly in pay occurred on grant of third
selection grade to Shri Mohd. Salim. If a
[2025:RJ-JD:1138] (3 of 3) [CW-15444/2024]
person junior to the Government servant is
drawing higher salary than the pay of the
senior has to be protected by giving him
benefits of stepping up in order to remove
the anomaly. In this view of the matter, the
petitioner is entitled for benefit of stepping
up to remove the anomaly in pay occurred
as a result of grant of third selection grade
to his junior.
13. In the result, the petition is allowed.
The order impugned dated 7.11.14,
denying to grant the benefits of stepping up
to the petitioner is quashed. The
respondents are directed to extend the
benefit of stepping up in pay to the
petitioner so as to remove the anomaly
occurred in pay of the petitioner vis-a-vis
pay drawn by his junior. No order as to
costs.
2. Mr. Chundawat, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid
position of facts and law.
3. Following the reasoning given in the case of Balmukund
Tiwari (supra), the present writ petition is allowed.
4. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of
stepping up in the pay to the petitioner, so as to remove the
anomaly occurred in petitioner's pay vis-a-vis pay drawn by his
junior. No order as to costs.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
106-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
