Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal Seervi & Ors vs Raj. High Court, Jodhpur & Anr on 19 February, 2014
Bench: Amitava Roy, Vijay Bishnoi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
:: ORDER ::
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4836/2012
Babu Lal Seervi & Ors. Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.
Date of Order : 19th February, 2014
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr.Manoj Bhandari, Mr.Hemant Dutt & Mr.Amit Tatia for the petitioners.
Mr.V.K.Mathur for respondent No.1.
Dr.P.S.Bhati, AAG with Mr.Pradhuman Singh for the respondent No.2.
*****
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :
The petitioners, who at the time of instituting the writ petition were working as Personal Assistants in the High Court services, seek judicial intervention for grant of first selection grade/first Assured Career Progression (also referred to as ACP) to them on completion of 9 years' of service by granting them grade pay of Rs.4200/- in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears by adjudging that the merger of the post of Junior Personal Assistant with that of Personal Assistant does not amount to upgradation and/or promotion within the meaning of circular No.F.20(1) FD (Gr.2)/92 dated 25.1.1992 of the Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Gr.2) Department, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (for short, hereafter referred to as '2008 Rules') as well as the Assured 2 Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and the note dated 4.3.2009, pertaining thereto.
We have heard Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Manoj Bhandari, Mr.Hemant Dutt & Mr.Amit Tatia, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Dr.P.S.Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr.Pradhuman Singh for the respondent No.2.
In brief, the pleaded case of the petitioners is that after joining the service, following their selection to the post of Stenographer, their pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000, and subsequent thereto, the nomenclature of their post was altered to that of Junior Personal Assistant. The Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Gr.2) Department vide its order dated 25.1.1992 prescribed selection grades for employees in class IV, ministerial and subordinate services and those holding isolated posts as well as the norms for fixation of pay in such grades, subject to the stipulations, as contained therein. This initiative was principally, to remove stagnation for lack of promotion in service, by way of conferment of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service. This notification was adopted by the Rajasthan High Court (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the High Court').
While the matter rested at that, before the petitioners could complete 9 years of service by 1.9.2006, the 2008 Rules were framed and brought into force with effect from that date. The 2008 Rules as well were made applicable to the employees of the High Court, including the 3 petitioners. The running pay bands and the grade pay, as accorded, and other particulars were set out in "Sections B, C & D" of Schedule I thereto. The petitioners have averred that under Section B, the posts of the staff/officials of the High Court were specified and the pay of the Personal Assistant was fixed in the running pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.3600. The pay band for the post of Senior Personal Assistant was fixed at Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200. In Section C, it was inter alia recorded that the post of Stenographer(Junior Personal Assistant) was merged with the post of Personal Assistant. The petitioners have mentioned that as would be apparent from the relevant entries in Sections B & C of Schedule I to the 2008 Rules, for the post of Stenographer and Personal Assistant, the existing pay scale had been shown to be Rs.5500-175-9000 with running pay band at Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay Rs.3600. Notwithstanding this, the finance department of the State drew up a note dated 4.3.2009 to the effect that consequent upon the merger of the post of Stenographer with that of Personal Assistant, the pay of the incumbents, in the former, should be fixed after giving the benefit of Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, hereafter referred to as '1951 Rules'), as if, the incidence of merger was one of promotion from the post of Junior Personal Assistant to that of Personal Assistant. The petitioners have alleged that this was contemplated to deprive them the benefit of first selection grade/first ACP admissible to them on completion of 9 years of service after 1.9.2006. Following this, orders dated 29.9.2011 and 1.11.2011 were 4 issued by the High Court effecting upgradation of the post of Stenographer (Junior Personal Assistant) to that of Personal Assistant and upgrading 37 Junior Personal Assistants, as referred to therein, who were in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 prior to 1.9.2006 to the post of Personal Assistant (pay scale 5500-175-9000) with effect from that date. Vide order dated 24.11.2011 issued by the Registrar (Admn.) of the High Court, the pay of the petitioners was fixed in the revised pay scale by granting benefit of Rule 26A of 1951 Rules i.e.one advance increment grantable on promotion. The petitioners, being aggrieved, submitted successive representations contending primarily that the merger of the post of Junior Personal Assistant with that of Personal Assistant did, by no means, signify upgradation of the post of Junior Personal Assistant or the promotion of the incumbent thereof to a higher post, and that, though they were entitled to the benefit of first selection grade/first ACP on completion of 9 years of service, they were pushed to suffer perpetual loss by fixing their pay under Rule 26A of the 1951 Rules. As the representations did not yield the reliefs sought for by them, they have turned to this Court.
The petitioners have asserted that the posts of Junior Personal Assistant and Personal Assistant carried the same scale of pay from the date they were appointed to the services of the High Court, and further, these posts do not mark any difference in responsibilities attached thereto, and thus, merger of these two cannot be construed to be either upgradation of the post of Junior Personal Assistant to that of Personal 5 Assistant or promotion. While admitting that they have been conferred the benefit of pay scale as per the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, and that, they are availing the benefit of pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.3600, the petitioners have maintained that they are entitled to the grant of first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service i.e.grade pay of Rs.4200, and thus, the orders dated 29.9.2011, 1.11.2011 and 24.11.2011 denying the same, are invalid in law. They have inter alia emphasized that in terms of Rule 26A of 1951 Rules, benefit of one increment is conferred upon a person on his promotion to a post in the regular line of promotion, cadre or department in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, and as the merger of the post of Junior Personal Assistant with that of Personal Assistant is not a promotion or upgradation, with no enhancement of pay scale or grade pay, the impugned step to the contrary is arbitrary, unfair and unjust.
The respondent-High Court, in its reply, endorsed the impugned action relying on the guidelines issued by the Finance Department of the State, as conveyed by the Law & Legal Affairs Department. While admitting the applicability of the notification dated 25.1.1992 to the members of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service to the extent, as contemplated therein, it accepted as well that the ACP Scheme had been promulgated in order to remove stagnation of the incumbents in the same pay scale due to lack of adequate avenues of promotion, but clarified that it had never been envisaged to accord such benefit to 6 anyone, if he/she had already been upgraded. That the ACP Scheme was also never intended to confer additional benefit to an incumbent, if he/she had already availed any upgradation or promotion, was underlined as well. The answering respondent averred that prior to 1.9.2006, with effect from which the 2008 Rules had been given effect to, the pay scale of the posts of Junior Personal Assistant and Personal Assistant was identical i.e.5500-175-9000, and on completion of satisfactory service of 9 years, a Junior Personal Assistant was granted the benefit of first selection grade in the same pay scale of Rs.5500-175- 9000 with the benefit of Rule 26A of the 1951 Rules. With the revision of pay scales effected by the 2008 Rules for both these posts, the prescribed running pay band was recommended to be Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.3600, and the Junior Personal Assistants, who would complete 9 years of service after 1.9.2006, on the grant of first ACP, were to be entitled to the grade pay of Rs.4200. According to this respondent, such a consequence posed pay anomaly, as those senior Personal Assistants and Junior Personal Assistants who, before 1.9.2006, had been granted first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service would, in terms of the revised pay scale fixed by 2008 Rules, receive grade pay of Rs.3600 in comparison to their junior counterparts who would complete 9 years of service after 1.9.2006. Situated thus, clarifications were sought by the respondent-High Court and the issue was eventually, referred to by the Law & Legal Affairs Department to the Finance Department of the State. The Finance Department responded 7 clarifying that the post of Junior Personal Assistant did not exist under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998, and that the post of Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 had been redesignated as Junior Personal Assistant by the High Court. It was mentioned that the pay scale of the Stenographer and Personal Assistant was identical prior to 1.9.2006, and that, on and from that date, vide 2008 Rules, the existing "lower post of Stenographer" had been merged with the "higher post of Personal Assistant". It thus advised the Law Department that from 1.9.2006 the existing lower post of Junior Personal Assistant may be merged with the higher post of Personal Assistants to resolve the pay anomaly between Senior Personal Assistants and Junior Personal Assistants and the pay of existing Stenographer (with less than 9 years of service as on 1.9.2006) be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 by treating them as Personal Assistant under Rule 26A of the 1951 Rules as on 1.9.2006 or the date of their option for the 2008 Rules. It was further clarified that those, who had already availed first selection grade as Stenographer, may be treated as Personal Assistant irrespective of the date of their option to be governed by the 2008 Rules, and only thereafter, their pay be fixed in the revised pay of Personal Assistant under the 2008 Rules. It was clarified as well that these Personal Assistants would be entitled to second & third ACP in the grade pay of Rs.4200 and Rs.4800 on completion of 18 & 27 years of service respectively. While denying the petitioners' imputation that the impugned step had been taken for the purpose of depriving them the 8 benefit of first selection grade admissible to them on completion of 9 years of service, the answering respondent set out the designation of the posts involved alongwith corresponding running pay band and grade pay following the promulgation of the 2008 Rules as hereunder:-
S.No. Post Running Pay Band Grade
Pay
Stenographer 9300-34800 3200/-
1 (New recruits)
2 P.A. 9300-34800 3600/-
3 Sr.PA-cum-JW 9300-34800 4200/-
4 PS-cum-JW 9300-34800 6600/-
It was asserted that in terms of the clarification/guidance provided by the Finance Department the Junior Personal Assistants who, as on 1.9.2006, had not completed 9 years of service, were granted the benefit of two increments under Rule 26A of 1951 Rules and accorded upgradation, construing the same as promotion, for which, the benefit of first ACP i.e.grade pay of Rs.4200 to them on completion of 9 years of service, was not grantable. As the benefit of two increments under Rule 26A of 1951 Rules accreted to the petitioners financial benefits, their plea that they had been subjected to perpetual loss, was denied. According to this respondent, in view of the upgradation of the Junior Personal Assistants as on 1.9.2006 or on the date of their option for 2008 Rules, they were only entitled to second ACP.
The respondent No.2 i.e.State of Rajasthan represented by the Finance Department, while substantially reiterating the above stand of the respondent-High Court, has stoutly endorsed the validity of the note dated 4.3.2009, based whereupon, the petitioners were granted 9 upgradation and the benefit of increments under Rule 26A of the 1951 Rules. It contended that prior to 1.9.2006, there were two categories of Stenographers i.e.those who had completed less than 9 years of service and others, who had done more than that duration, but less than 18 years of service, and that, their pay scale was same i.e.Rs.5500-175-9000 as that of Personal Assistant, a post to which stenographers had either been granted promotion before completion of 9 years of service or had been so promoted after grant of first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service. The answering respondent admitted that after 1.9.2006 the post of Stenographer was merged with that of Personal Assistant, as a consequence whereof, the Stenographers who had not completed 9 years of service, became entitled to the grade pay of Rs.4200 on completion of 9 years of service after 1.9.2006, whereas the Stenographers who had, as on that date, completed 9 years of service and the existing Personal Assistants were entitled to the grade pay of Rs.3600. As a corollary, a junior incumbent was thus scheduled to be entitled to the grade pay of Rs.4200 compared to his/her senior entitled to the grade pay of Rs.3600 thus, resulting in pay anomaly for which, as sought for, it provided the necessary clarifications. It reiterated that on the issue being referred to it, it clarified that the pay of the existing Stenographers (with less than 9 years of service) in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000, ought to be first fixed in the same pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 by treating them as Personal Assistant under Rule 26A of the 1951 Rules as on 1.9.2006 or on the date of their option for the 10 2008 Rules and those who had already availed the first selection grade as Stenographer, be treated as Personal Assistant irrespective of the date of their option under 2008 Rules, and thereafter, their pay be fixed in the revised pay band and the grade pay of Personal Assistant under the said Rules. It mentioned as well that these Personal Assistants would thus, be entitled to the second ACP in the grade pay of Rs.4200 and third ACP in the grade pay of Rs.4800/- on completion of 18 & 27 years of service respectively. The respondent-Department refuted the plea that the above recommendation was contrary to the statutory rules and rather claimed it to be in consonance with 2008 Rules. The answering respondent thus, endorsed the orders dated 29.9.2011, 1.11.2011 & 24.11.2011 issued by the respondent-High Court.
Mr.Singhvi has urged that as the merger of the post of Junior Personal Assistant with that of Personal Assistant under the 2008 Rules, by no means, amounts to promotion, the petitioners could not have been denied the benefit of first ACP on completion of 9 years of service, and thus, the opinion of the Finance Department, as contained in its note dated 4.3.2009 and the consequential actions on the basis thereof, ought to be adjudged illegal and null & void. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioners cannot, in the attendant facts and circumstances and in the teeth of the merger mandated by the 2008 Rules, be denied the benefit of first ACP on completion of 9 years of service beyond 1.9.2006. According to him, in the face of the decisions of this Court in Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Vs. Babu Lal Arora (D.B. Civil Special 11 Appeal (Writ) No.860/1997 d/d 5.11.2009), since affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 26.4.2010 in Special Leave Petition No.6138/2010 and also in State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal Mathur (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.607/2010), conclusively determining that the transition from the post of Stamp Reporter to that of Court Master in the High Court service carrying the same pay, was not a promotion, as contemplated in service jurisprudence, by analogy of reasonings, the respondents' plea to the contrary qua the posts of Junior Personal Assistant and Personal Assistant, is fallacious, and thus, all actions incidental thereto, are patently void ab initio.
Learned senior counsel maintained that not only the 2008 Rules did not contemplate any upgradation from the post of Junior Personal Assistant to Personal Assistant, as sought to be represented by the respondents, the grant of two increments under Rule 26A of the 1951 Rule, did not per se, transform the merger of these two posts i.e. Junior Personal Assistant into Personal Assistant, to be a phenomenon of promotion. Contending that the plea of upgradation and/or promotion from Junior Personal Assistant to Personal Assistant, as both the posts carry the same scale of pay and shoulder same duties and responsibilities, is wholly misconceived, even otherwise, Mr.Singhvi has maintained that such an initiative, being contrary to the 2008 Rules, is liable to be adjudged non est in law.
Dr.Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the clarification and/or recommendations of the Finance Department, in the 12 face of the emerging pay anomaly involving Junior Personal Assistant (merged with Personal Assistant) vide 2008 Rules, who had not completed 9 years of service as on 1.9.2006 and others who had done so, and had either been upgraded/promoted or granted the benefit of first ACP/selection grade, apart from logical and rational, is in harmony with these Rules, the course adopted by the respondent-High Court, on the basis thereof, is wholly valid and does not warrant any interference. While reiterating that the benefit of upgradation extended to the petitioners, alongwith that of increments under Rule 26A of the 1951 Rules, do adequately secure their financial interest, the learned Additional Advocate General has urged that if the benefit to them, as prayed for in the instant proceedings, is granted, it would have a serious cascading effect in the face of similar mergers in other departments as well.
Mr.Singhvi, in reply, has referred to Rule 16 of the 2008 Rules to contend that as the same provides for removal of any possible anomaly in the process of implementation thereof, the clarification and/or recommendation by the Finance Department contrary thereto or beyond the same, is wholly incompetent, and being repugnant thereof, is unmistakably, non-existent. Referring to the 2008 Rules, the learned senior counsel has argued that the plea of all pervading impact and wide ramifications on the acceptance of the petitioners' claim, is belied by the fact that very few mergers, in fact, have been stipulated therein. The learned senior counsel reiterated that drawing the analogy of the 13 decision rendered in Babu Lal Arora (supra) on the notion of promotion, the petitioners are entitled to the relief, as claimed.
We have examined the rival pleadings, the documents on record and also the arguments advanced.
The pleaded facts, bearing on service profile of the petitioners as Junior Personal Assistant (earlier designated as Stenographer) till their merger with the post of Personal Assistant vide the 2008 Rules, are not in dispute. That they as on 1.9.2006, the date on which the 2008 Rules had been enforced, had not completed 9 years of service, is also not in debate. Admittedly, the notification dated 25.1.1992 issued by the Government of Rajasthan prescribing selection grades to the members of the ministerial and subordinate services on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service with a view to remove stagnation in each posts, subject to conditions as embodied therein, had been adopted by the respondent- High Court for its application to the members of its service to the extent, as contemplated therein. This notification was succeeded by one dated 17.2.1998 in the same terms and conditions and there exists, as on date as well, as has been referred to by the petitioners, Memorandum No.F.14 (88)FD(Rules)/2008-I dated 31.12.2009 for grant of ACP to Class IV, Ministerial, Subordinate Services Government Servants and those holding isolated posts under the 2008 Rules. This scheme envisages placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of pay bands and grade pays as given in Section "A" of Schedule I to the 2008 Rules, in the form of three financial upgradations, counted from the direct entry 14 grade on the completion of period of service prescribed in Rule 19 of the 2008 Rules. Such financial upgradation is admissible, whenever a person has spent 9 years of service continuously in the same grade pay.
Be that as it may, as on 1.9.2006 the following three categories of employees relevant for the present adjudication did exist :-
1. Stenographer (now designated as Junior Personal Assistant), who had completed less than 9 years of service.
2. Stenographer (now designated as Junior Personal Assistant), who had completed more than 9 years of service, but had not completed 18 years of service.
3. Personal Assistant, to which either the Stenographer (Jr.PA) before completion of 9 years of service had been inducted therein or they had been so drafted in, after grant of first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service.
Incidentally, the pay scale of these three categories prior to 1.9.2006 was same i.e.5500-175-9000. With the advent of the 2008 Rules, the following picture emerged vis-a-vis the respondent-High Court for the posts involved:-
Name of Post Existing Pay Pay Band Running Pay Grade Pay Scale Band Stenographer 5500-9000 PB-2 9300-34800 3600 Personal 5500-9000 PB-2 9300-34800 Assistant 3600 In sub-clause (ii) of Section "C" of Schedule I of the 2008 Rules dealing in Common Posts in Government Secretariat, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Governor's Secretariat, Lokayukta Sachivalaya, Rajasthan High Court (other than specifically mentioned in Sections 'B' & 'D'), the following entries, as relevant, were enumerated :-15
.....
S.No. Name of the Existing Pay Running Grade Grade Remarks
Post Pay Scale Band Pay Band Pay Pay
No.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ..
7 Stenographer - PB-2 9300-34800 For new
11 3200 recruitees
9 Stenographer 5500-9000 PB-2 9300-34800 12 3600 The post of
existing
10. Personal 5500-9000 PB-2 9300-34800 12 3600
stenographer
Assistant
shall be
merged into
the post of
personal
assistant.
As would be patent from the above entries, whereas for the fresh recruits as Stenographer, the 2008 Rules provided running pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.3200, for the serving Stenographers (Junior Personal Assistant) though the running pay band was prescribed to be the same, it carried the grade pay of Rs.3600. The same pay band and grade pay was stipulated for the post of Personal Assistant as well. Further, the post of Stenographer (Junior Personal Assistant) was mandated to be merged with that of the Personal Assistant. Rule 16 of the 2008 Rules, as amended vide notification No.F.14(1) FD (Rules)/2013- II dated 6.4.2013 with effect from 1.1.2006 provided that in case where a senior government servant promoted to a higher post before 1.1.2006 (1st day of September, as originally framed) draws less pay in the running pay band than his junior, who is promoted to the higher post on or after the Ist day of January 2006 (1st day of September, as originally framed), the pay in the running pay band of the senior government servant should be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay in the running pay band, as 16 fixed for his junior in that higher post. This provision further provides that the stepping up should be done from the date of promotion of the junior government servant, subject to the conditions, as recited therein.
There is no wrangle at the Bar that the 2008 Rules do not contemplate upgradation and/or promotion from the post of Junior Personal Assistant to that of Personal Assistant. To reiterate, as adverted to hereinabove, thereby the existing post of Stenographer (Junior Personal Assistant) has been merged into the post of Personal Assistant. That at all relevant times, pay scale for the post of Stenographer (Junior Personal Assistant) and that of the Personal Assistant had been identical, is also not in doubt. There is also no overwhelming material on record to unequivocally demonstrate that the post of Personal Assistant carries more onerous duties with higher responsibilities compared to those, relatable to that of Junior Personal Assistant.
In somewhat identical factual setting, this Court was seized with the quaere as to whether transition of an incumbent from the post of Stamp Reporter to Court Master in the same service, did amount to promotion. The adjudication was called for in the context of a claim made by the Court Masters in the High Court service, who had been inducted therein from the post of Stamp Reporter, and construing the said progression to be a promotion, were sought to be denied the benefit of third selection grade, in terms of the notification dated 25.1.1992. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Babu Lal Arora (supra), on an examination of all relevant aspects, both legal and factual, held that the 17 two posts carried same scale of pay and in absence of anything to authenticate that the post of Court Master carried any higher responsibility, it could not be concluded to be a promotional one qua that of the Stamp Reporter. This determination was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide the order dated 26.4.2010, whereby it dismissed the Special Leave Petition No.6138/2010, preferred against the same. With the said verdict the adjudication, as made by this Court, attained finality.
Incidentally, another coordinate Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Mathur (supra) also rendered the same ruling. This was followed by the decision in Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10493/2011 d/d 17.9.2013) also involving the same issue, in which, in addition, the bearing on the grant of increments under Rule 26A of the 1951 Rules, was assayed as well. It was held by coordinate Bench of this Court in Suresh Kumar & Ors. (supra) that the essential pre-requisite for the applicability of this provision was 'an' incidence of promotion, and thus, the grant of increments envisaged therein, could not be construed to be a substitute of such promotion or a supplement to an upward hierarchical motion otherwise bereft of its indispensable attributes recognized by law. It was held that if the progression of any incumbent from one post to another, though at different levels in service ranks is, in fact, not a promotion, as comprehended in law, grant of increments per se for the purpose of fixation of initial pay, as a consequence, ipso facto would not render the lift, a promotion. We see 18 no cogent or convincing reason to take a different view vis-a-vis the motion from the post of Junior Personal Assistant to Personal Assistant accompanied by increments under Rule 26A of the 1951 Rules recommended by the Finance Department of the State and acted upon by the respondent-High Court, so as to purportedly remedy the pay anomaly precipitated by the merger of these two posts by the 2008 Rules and the running pay band with grade pay prescribed therefor, when read in conjunction with the notification dated 25.1.1992 and/or the memorandum dated 31.12.2009.
In other words, merger of these two posts notwithstanding, as unambiguously predicated by the 2008 Rules, the post of Personal Assistant could not be construed to be a promotional one, so much so, that a Junior Personal Assistant on being conferred increments under Rule 26A as on 1.9.2006 can be denied benefit of first ACP, as claimed on that ground. Any instance of so called promotion from the post of Junior Personal Assistant to Personal Assistant with such increments effected prior to 1.9.2006, in our view, has been rendered inconsequential on and from that date with prospective effect, in view of the 2008 Rules and the incidence of merger into each other. In the face of the statutory mandate of the 2008 Rules enjoining merger of the post of Junior Personal Assistant into that of Personal Assistant on and from 1.9.2006 and the specific provision as contained in Rule 16 thereof for removal of anomalies, the recommendation, as suggested by the Finance Department, is not a legally approvable one. The clarification of the 19 Finance Department and/or guidelines based thereon, in our estimate, are incompatible with the letter and spirit of the relevant provisions of the 2008 Rules, and thus, cannot receive judicial imprimatur. The petitioners thus, in our unhesitant opinion, cannot be denied the benefit of first ACP on the completion of 9 years of service, after 1.9.2006, in terms of the 2008 Rules.
The fact that under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998, the post of Junior Personal Assistant did not exist, in our comprehension, is wholly inconsequential, in the emerging conspectus of subsequent facts. As the clarification and/or the guidelines of the Finance Department, as contained in its note dated 4.3.2009, not only, to our understanding, are antithetical to the 2008 Rules, but also seek to circumvent the intended sweep thereof, it is hereby adjudged invalid and non est in law.
On a perusal of the 2008 Rules, not only, we are of the view that the petitioners' plea of want of competence of the Finance Department to frame the impugned guidelines, as done, has substance, the contention that sustenance of their claim would have a formidable financial ramifications, in view of several such mergers, is also not borne out thereby.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the clarifications provided by the Finance Department vide its note dated 4.3.2009 and the consequential steps taken by the respondent-High Court vide order dated 24.11.2011 are illegal and unsustainable in law. The respondents are 20 hereby directed to process the claim of the petitioners for first selection grade scale/ACP on completion of 9 years of service, in terms of the 2008 Rules.
The petition accordingly, is allowed in the above terms.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J. Skant/Parmar