Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madhu Arora And Ors vs Raj. High Court,Jodhpur And Anr on 3 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 RAJ 480
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Abhay Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6958/2018
PETITIONERS:
1. Madhu Arora W/o Dr.Anil Arora, by caste Arora, aged about
44 years, resident of 17/29, Chopasani Housing Board,
Jodhpur.
2. Sunil Nagpal S/o Shri R.K.Nagpal, resident of 71-72, Mangal
Vihar, Paota "C" Road, Jodhpur.
3. Bhupesh Mishra S/o Shri Indrajeet Mishra, resident of House
No.3-C-35, Kuri Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
4. Sunil Paliwal S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Paliwal, resident of
House No.33, Vaishali Avenue, Opposite B.R.Birla School,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
5. Kunj Bihari Dave S/o LateShri Keshav Dutt Dave, resident of
Brahmpuri, Hazari Chabutra, Nala Street, Jodhpur.
6. Dinesh Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, resident of
Ram Bagh, Street No.2,Kaga Road, Jodhpur.
7. Kiran Vyas W/o Shri Jugal Chhangani, resident of C.G.18,
High Court Colony, Jodhpur.
8. Bhag Chand Yadav S/o Shri Bheru Lal Yadav, resident of
4/52, Chitrakoot, Jaipur.
9. Arvind Dube S/o Lt.Shri Suresh Chandra Dube, resident of
D-21, Govind Kripa-II, Near Vivek Vihar Metro Station,
Mohan Marg, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.
10. Lokesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma,
resident of 95, Lovekush Nagar, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur.
11. Sunil Sharma S/o Shri Brij Bhanu Sharma, resident of B-II-
21,Bajaj Nagar Apartments, Jaipur.
12. Dinesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Prem Chand Jain, residentof 27,
Rajiv Vihar "A", Mangyawas, New Sanganer Road,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
13. Suresh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shiv Dutt Sharma,
residentof 59, Patel Nagar, Near Mahesh Nagar Extension,
Jaipur.
14. Jitendra Mohan Mathur S/o Shri Surendra Mohan, resident
of 81/229, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
15. Shyam Singh S/o Shri Chhitar Singh, resident of 59, Girdhar
(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM)
(2 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018]
Vihar, Panchayala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.
16. Pinky Jain W/o Shri Deepankar Jain, resident of C-159, Hari
Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
17. Manoj Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Uttam Prakash Goyal, resident
of 14/14, Swarn Path, Mansarowar, Jaipur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1. Rajasthan High Court through its Registrar General.
2. Registrar (Administration), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
3. Santosh Dadhich W/o Shri Rajendra Parsad Ji, aged 59
years, presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
4. Nathmal Daiya S/o Shri Sangilal Ji, aged 55 years, presently
working as Administrative Officer Judicial, Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur.
5. Mahendra Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Ramsukh Ji, aged 56 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
6. Ramchandra Rajpurohit S/o Shri Dudaram Ji, aged 58 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
7. Rajendra Prasad Kanojiya S/o Shri Sukhlal Ji, aged 56 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
8. Vishnu Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Bhagirath Sharma, aged 58
years, presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
9. Chhagan Lal Tanwar S/o Late Shri Radhakishan Tanwar,
aged 58 years, presently working as Administrative Officer
Judicial, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
10. Kanta Joshi W/o Shri M.L.Joshi, aged 57 years, presently
working as Administrative Officer Judicial, Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur.
11. George P.T. S/o Shri Thomas P.T., aged 57 years, presently
working as Guest House Manager-I, Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
12. Mohan Kishan Panwar S/o LateShri Bhawar Lal Panwar, aged
52 years, presently working as Administrative Officer
Judicial, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
13. Khet Singh S/o Shri Laxmichand Ji, aged 53 years, presently
(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM)
(3 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018]
working as Administrative Officer Judicial, Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur.
14. Vijay Laxmi W/o Shri Prem Prakash Chouhan, aged 58
years, presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
15. Rajesh Jangid S/o Shri G.C. Jangid, aged 51 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
16. Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Glhanshyam Das, aged 51 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
17. Kamlesh Tater S/o Shri Shantimal Tater, aged 58 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
18. Ashok Bhandari S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan, aged 50 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
19. Poonam Chand Patel S/o Shri Umedaram Patel, aged 54
years, presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
20. Mahaveer Singh S/o LateShri Girdhari Singh, aged 56 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
21. Shiv Prakash Verma S/o Shri Panna Lal, aged 57 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
22. Shyam Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Mopat Singh, aged 55
years, presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
23. Anil Ragwani S/o Shri Nawal Kishore Ragwani, presently
working as Administrative Officer Judicial, Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur.
24. Manish Jain S/o Shri Ratanlal Jain, aged 40 years, presently
working as Assistant Accounts Officer, Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
25. Mukesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Sharma, aged 43
years, presently working as Assistant Accounts Officer,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
26. Vijay Dayal Bohra S/o Shri Sridayal Bohra, aged 47 years,
presently working as Assistant Accounts Officer, Rajasthan
High Court, Jodhpur.
27. Deepak Mehta S/o Shri Gvind Raj Mehta, aged 43 years,
(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM)
(4 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018]
presently working as Assistant Accounts Officer, Rajasthan
High Court, Jodhpur.
28. Chandra Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Lal Singh, aged 55 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
29. Anil Gupta S/o Shri Om Swaroop Gupta, aged 52 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
30. Smt. Usha Sharma W/o Shri Kailash Ji, aged 55 years,
presently working as Administrative Officer Judicial,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
For Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Balia
: & Mr. Hemant Balani.
For Respondents No.1 & 2. : Dr. Sachin Acharya.
For Respondents No.3 to 30. : Dr. Nikhil Dungawat.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY CHATURVEDI
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)
Date of Pronouncement : 03/01/2020 Judgment reserved on : 26/09/2019 REPORTABLE
The petitioners herein are working on the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner in the Rajasthan High Court. They have preferred the instant writ petition on 11.5.2018 which was subsequently amended on 3.12.2018, seeking the following relief:
"i) the impugned order dated 07.07.2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the representation filed by the petitioners may kindly allowed.
ii) the respondents authorities may kindly be directed to treat the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner as feeder post for recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar.(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM)
(5 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] ii-A) The clause 7 of the order dated 5.12.2002 issued under the rules of 2002 may kindly be amended by treating the post of Stamp Reporter & Court Fees Examiner equivalent to the post of Court Master.
ii-B) the respondents authority may kindly be directed to make appropriate amendment in clause 4 of the order dated 05.12.2002 issued under the rules of 2002 by inserting post of Court Master by treating them equivalent to the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner. ii-C) the respondents authority may kindly be directed to make appropriate amendment in clause 12 of the order dated 05.12.2002 issued under the rules of 2002 by inserting post Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner as feeder post for promotion/recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar and grant the benefits to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
ii-D) In the alternative and without prejudice, read Court Master as appearing in clause 12 and other clauses is including to mean Court Master/Court Fee Examiner/Stamp Reporter.
iii) the respondents authorities may kindly be directed to determine the Inter-se-seniority amongst the Administrative Officer Judicial, Assistant Account Officer, Chief Account cum Administrative Officer Judicial, Guest House Manager-I, Court Master as well as Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, from the date of joining on the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner and with all consequential benefits."
The basic grievance raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that despite the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner having been placed equivalent and at par with the post of Court Master by virtue of an order dated 30 th August 2016 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 18th October 2016 and corrected by the Gazette errata dated 15.12.2016 issued in compliance of various judicial pronouncements, the petitioners are (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (6 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] being ignored from consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/Court Officer by treating their posts to be the feeder posts in the channel of promotion.
The writ petition came to be filed in the year 2018 whereafter, notices were issued and reply of the Rajasthan High Court was received. Another stream of employees of the Rajasthan High Court viz. Administrative Officer Judicial/Assistant Accounts Officer, Guest House Manager Gr.1, which constitute one of the feeder cadres for filling up the post of Assistant Registrar by way of promotion, moved an application (I.A. No.3596/2018) for their joinder as respondents in the writ petition, which was accepted by this Court vide order dated 3.8.2018 and those applicants were impleaded as respondents No.3 to 30 and are represented by Shri Nikhil Dungawat Advocate. Thus, a stream of employees likely to be affected by the out come of this writ petition are duly represented and have been heard in these proceedings.
Whilst the matter was under consideration, we directed Dr.Sachin Acharya learned counsel representing the Rajasthan High Court by order dated 7.1.2019 to have the issue re-examined on the administrative side in the expectancy that the controversy could be resolved in house and expeditiously to the satisfaction of all concerned. The case was listed on a number of dates thereafter, but the issue appears to have not been resolved on the administrative side till date.
Thereupon, and on the insistence of the learned counsel representing the petitioners that their clients' prospects of (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (7 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] promotions are being adversely affected and unnecessarily delayed, the case was finally heard.
Interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan High Court (Condition of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1953' for short) as well as the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2002' for brevity) which stipulate the service conditions of the petitioners, is the bone of contention between the parties.
The petitioners herein claim that the posts of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner and Court Master are equivalent for all purposes and thus, they are also entitled to be considered as working in the feeder cadre for promotion to the next level in the hierarchy i.e. Assistant Registrar/Court Officer. The foundation of the petitioners' cause is based on the ratio of two previous judgments rendered by Division Benches of this Court in the cases of (i) Raj. High Court, Jodhpur Vs. Babu Lal (Spl. Appl. Writ No.860/1997) decided on 5.11.2009 and (ii) Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10493/2011) decided on 17.9.2013.
In the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Babu Lal Arora (supra), the Division Bench held as below:
"In view of the above, we are left not to conclude anything else, except that, since the two posts of Court Fee Examiner/Stamp Reporter and Bench Reader carry the same pay scale, and in absence of anything being shown to us about the post of Bench Reader carrying any higher responsibility, it cannot be said that it is a promotion. Obviously, therefore, it cannot be said, that when the petitioner was promoted (appointed) to the post of Bench Reader from the post of Court Fee Examiner/Stamp Reporter, he cannot be said to have been accorded promotion, say third promotion, within the meaning of expression contemplated, and used in Annexure-5, so as to (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (8 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] deny the grant of third selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 27 years of service."
The said decision was challenged by Rajasthan High Court before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.6138/2010 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.4.2010.
A similar controversy arose before another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar & Ors. (supra), wherein the Rules of 1953 as well as the Rules of 2002 were considered and the controversy in favour of the petitioners therein, who were working as Bench Readers (now Court Masters). The relevant portions of the judgment in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra) are extracted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:
"11. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 11.7.1997 sustained the claim holding that the appointment of the Court Fee Examiner/Stamp Reporter to the post of Bench Reader (now Court Master) could not be said to be a promotion in the real sense of the term and directed that the writ petitioner be awarded the third selection grade being of Rs.2000-3200 from the date when any of his junior in UDC cadre had been granted the same. The appeal filed against the said determination was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.5.1998, whereafter the challenge was taken to the Hon'ble Apex Court. By its judgment and order dated 12.12.2003, the matter was remanded to this Court for re-scrutiny of the aspect as to whether the appointment of the writ petitioner (Babu Lal Arora) to the post of Bench Reader was really a promotion or a posting in another equivalent post, though termed as promotion by a coordinate Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 5.11.2009 in SAW No.860/1997 on an elaborate invigilation of the relevant aspects, both legal and factual, sustained the determination in the writ proceedings that the two posts of Court Fee Examiner/Stamp Reporter and Bench Reader (Court Master) carried the same pay scale and in absence of anything to demonstrate that the post of Bench Reader carried any higher responsibility, it could not be construed to be a promotional one qua that of the Court Fee Examiner/Stamp Reporter. It was thus, concluded that on the promotion of the writ petitioner therein i.e.Babu Lal Arora (supra) to the post of Bench Reader from that of Court Fee Examiner/Stamp Reporter, he could not be said to have been accorded promotion, say "third promotion" so as to deny him the grant of third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service.(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM)
(9 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018]
14. Records reveal that thereafter representations were submitted by the serving Court Masters on 16.3.2010, 14.5.2010 and in August 2010 reiterating the claim for being granted the third selection grade equivalent to the pay scale of the next higher post. On the administrative side, in this factual backdrop, the issue was referred to a Committee of two Hon'ble Judges, which on 8.2.2011 submitted a report recommending as hereunder:-
"(1) the Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiners are required to be treated at par with the Court Masters for the purpose of grant of grade pay in the pay scale of Rs.9300-
34800. The fixation of the Stamp Reporters is also required to be made in the pay scale aforesaid with a grade pay of Rs.4200/- instead of Rs.3600/-;
(2) the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner being a post equivalent to the post of Court Master deserves consideration for grant of gazetted status at par with the Court Masters; and (3) the issue with regard to grant of selection grades to the Court Masters is required to be dealt with as per the law laid down by Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writs) No.860/1997, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Babulal, decided on 5.11.2009. Accordingly, the Court Masters are entitled for grant of third selection grade by not treating appointment to the post of Court Master from the post of Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiner as a promotion."
17. Though the parties are not in issue with regard to the avenues of promotion provided by the two sets of rules i.e. Rules of 1953 & Rules of 2002, expedient it would be, for ready reference, to enumerate the channels thereof as hereunder:-
Rules of 1953 Lower Division Clerk (by way of direct recruitment) Upper Division Clerk (By way of promotion by seniority) Stamp Reporter -cum- Court Fee Examiners (By way of promotion subject to passing the test) Bench Reader (Promotion on basis of seniority) subject to efficiency Senior Bench Reader/Senior Court Masters (On basis of seniority subject to efficiency) Superintendents (Judicial and General Sections) Assistant Registrar (On basis of Seniority -cum- Merit) Deputy Registrar (Administration) (by way of Selection) (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (10 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] Rules of 2002 Junior Judicial Assistant (Lower Division Clerk//Enquiry Clerk/Record Weeder) (by way of direct recruitment) Judicial Assistant(Upper Division Clerk prior to 24.7.2004 (by way of promotion by adjudging suitability under the criteria of seniority -cum- merit from among the junior judicial assistants Stamp Reporter -cum- Court Fee Examiners (by adjudging suitability of Upper Division Clerks as per the criteria of Seniority-cum- merit Court Masters (by way of promotion by adjuding suitability of Stamp Reporters and Court Fee Examiners under the criteria of Seniority-cum-
Merit Assistant Registrar / Court Officer (by way of promotion from among the superintendents, Guest House Manager Gr.I/Assistant Accounts Officers and Court Masters by adopting the criteria of Seniority-cum-merit)
18. To reiterate, the promotional step as contemplated under the Rules from the post of Stamp Reporter to that of Court Master did remain the same. Though under the Rules of 1953, the next promotional post was that of Senior Bench Reader/Senior Court Master followed by Superintendent and Assistant Registrar in the ascending order, under the Rules of 2002 the next promotional post from that of Court Master is of the Assistant Registrar / Court Officer. As a corollary, under the Rules of 2002, if the progression from the post of Stamp Reporter to that of Court Master is not construed to be a promotion, then the third promotion of an incumbent who had joined as Junior Judicial Assistant (earlier designated as Lower Division Clerk) would be as Assistant Registrar /Court Officer, thereby determining his/her pay scale by way of third selection grade.
19. Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules predicates the manner of fixation of initial pay of a government servant in the time scale of the higher post on his/her promotion in the post in the regular line of promotion in his service, cadre or department, in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity. Though this provision, in letter and spirit, is applicable to the members of the service of this Court governed by the aforestated Rules of 1953 & 2002, the essential and indispensable requisite for the application thereof is the incidence of promotion. Grant of increment(s) as envisaged thereunder cannot be a substitute of a promotion or a supplement to an upward hierarchical motion, shorn of its essential legally recognized attributes. If such transition of an incumbent from one post to the other, though at different levels in service ranks, is not actually a promotion as comprehended in law, grant of increment(s) for the purpose of fixation of initial pay as a (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (11 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] consequence per se, in our view, would not render the lift a promotion.
20. Vis-a-vis the aspect of conferment of gazetted status and high responsibilities qua the post of Court Master, in the face of the decision rendered in Babu Lal Arora (supra) and the renewed scrutiny made by the Committee of two Hon'ble Judges, we are disinclined in absence of any overwhelming and unimpeachable material to the contrary, to conclude otherwise at this distant point of time. We are also in respectful agreement with the Committee qua its view with regard to the grade pay stipulated for the two posts. The difference in grade pay, as recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission and incorporated in the Rules of 2008, also does not, in our comprehension, make the post of Court Master a promotional one in comparison to that of the Stamp Reporter.
[Emphasis supplied]
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharaja Kumar Vs. State of J&K (supra), did ennounce in emphatic terms that though the constitutional guarantee enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 does not warrant that an illegality should be perpetuated by applying wrong decision in other cases, it was underlined as well that once a decision rendered by a court of law has attained finality, the same ought to be accepted for granting similar benefits, as extended thereby.
22. As recited hereinabove, the adjudication in Babu Lal Arora (supra) after a prolonged and repeated scrutiny of the issues involved by different forums did reach its finality on 26.4.2010. The eventual verdict has not only been relied upon for further adjudications, but also in deciding the same issues on the administrative side. In absence of any cogent, convincing and legally cognizable persuasive reasons, we are disinclined to sustain the plea of inapplicability of the decision in Babu Lal Arora (supra) to the post 2002 fact situations. We thus affirm that the appointment of a Stamp Reporter to the post of Court Master under the relevant Rules is not a promotion and cannot thus be acted upon to be a third promotion for the Lower Division Clerk/Junior Judicial Assistant in the service of this Court to determine their third selection grade under the notifications dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998.
31. The upshot of the above determination is thus that the appointment of a Stamp Reporter to the post of Court Master is not a promotion under the relevant Service Rules and the petitioners would be entitled to the selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500 as stipulated by the notification dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998 on completion of 27 years of service. However, in computing and releasing the actual financial benefits, the date of conferment of gazetted status to the post of Court Master would be the cut off date therefor, having regard to the ambit of applicability of the notification dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998, as the case may be. The actual relief of third selection grade would, thus, stand limited upto 2.3.2009. The challenge to paragraphs 2(iii), 4(iii) & 5 is negated."
[Emphasis supplied]
(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM)
(12 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018]
At this stage, it may be mentioned here that an
administrative order governing the issue at hand was issued by Rajasthan High Court on 5.12.2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the order of 2002' in short). The material Clauses (7) and (12) thereof are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"(7) COURT MASTERS.- Recruitment to the post of Court Master shall be made by promotion on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority adjudging the suitability of the candidates on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the Stamp Reporters and Court Fee Examiner.
Explanation- The pay scale including Grade Pay of Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners and Court Masters will be same. Likewise, Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners will be entitled for gazetted status at par with Court Masters.
(12) ASSISTANT REGISTRARS/COURT OFFICERS.- Recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar/Court Officer shall be made by promotion on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority adjudging suitability of the Candidates on the criteria of merit from amongst the Administrative Officer Judicial, Guest House Manager Grade-1, Assistant Accounts Officers, Chief Accountant-cum-Administrative Officer Judicial and Court Masters."
Manifestly, as per these clauses of the order of 2002, recruitment to the post of Court Master was to be made by promotion from the cadre of Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners. As per Clause 12 of the order of 2002, appointment to the post of Assistant Registrars/Court Officers, which are the next promotional posts in the hierarchy, were to be made from (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (13 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] amongst Administrative Officer Judicial, Guest House Manager Grade-1, Assistant Accounts Officers, Chief Accountant-cum- Administrative Officer Judicial and Court Masters. It appears that upon realizing that these clauses of the Order of 2002 ran contrary to the ratio of the Division Bench Judgments in the cases of Babu Lal Arora and Suresh Kumar (supra), the Rajasthan High Court issued another notification dated 30.8.2016 which was published in the official gazette on 18.10.2016 whereby, the posts of Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners were made gazetted posts and their Grade Pay was fixed at Rs.4800/- which is equivalent to the Grade Pay of Court Master. The following explanation was appended to the existing Clause 7 of the Order of 2002:-
"Explanation- The pay scale including Grade Pay of Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners and Court Masters will be same. Likewise, Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners will be entitled for gazetted status at par with Court Masters."
It may be clarified that originally, the date of coming into force of this explanation was mentioned in the order published in gazette publication as 1.1.2016 but since this was purely a typographical error, an errata was issued in the Rajasthan Gazette on 15.12.2016 whereby the entire order was made effective from 1.1.2006.
It may be stated here that as per the latest Schedule-I issued under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2002, Court Masters and the Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners have been placed at the same level in the pay matrix i.e. L-12 i.e. 44300-140100.
Superficially speaking, the grievance of the petitioners should have been alleviated with the order dated 18.10.2016 but (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (14 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] it appears that despite making the Grade Pay of Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners equivalent with that of Court Masters and conferring gazetted status upon them, the claim of the petitioners regarding inclusion of their post in the channel of direct promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar was still not addressed and posts of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner were not included in the feeder cadre of promotion under Clause 12 of the order of 2002 as amended by the order of 2016.
Shri Vikas Balia learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that the inclusion of the petitioners' post in Clause 12 of the order of 2002 is imperative and indispensable and by not doing so, the Rajasthan High Court is acting in contempt of the Division Bench judgments referred to supra. The failure of Rajasthan High Court in giving effect to the Division Bench Judgments is leading to a grave anomaly because for all practical purposes viz. Pay Scale, Grade Pay and the level of the post (gazetted officers), the petitioners and their peers have been placed at par with Court Masters but without any rhyme or reason, they have not been included in the same channel of promotion as the Court Masters and hence, the Clause 7 as well as Clause 12 of the order of 2002 deserve to be struck down or in the alternative, a pertinent direction deserves to be issued that the posts of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner be included in Clause 12 of the aforesaid order. Shri Balia further contended that in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra), the Division Bench of this Court considered the entire controversy by adverting to the Rules of 1953 as well as the Rules of 2002 and conclusively held that both the posts viz. those of Court Masters and Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiners are equivalent for all purposes. The (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (15 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] Rajasthan High Court accepted the verdict and made a partial amendment in Clause 7 of the order of 2002 by equating and placing at par the Grade Pay/Pay Scale of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiners and Court Masters. Gazetted status was also conferred to the Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiners by this order and thus, as per Shri Balia, there cannot be any justification so as to exclude the petitioners from the channel of direct promotion once they have been placed at par with the Court Masters for whom, the next promotional avenue is to the post of Assistant Registrar. Referring to the Babu Lal Arora's judgment, Shri Balia urged that there is no significant difference in the nature of duties of the Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiners and the Bench Readers (as the post of Court Master was then called). Shri Balia relied upon the observations made in the case of Babu Lal Arora (supra) wherein, the Division Bench held that the duties of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner and the Bench Reader are not different in any manner. Shri Balia urged that in case, the post held by the petitioners i.e. Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner is not included in Clause 12, they would be deprived from promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar/Court Officer forever which would be totally arbitrary/unconstitutional as being contrary to the letter and spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He thus implored the Court to accept the writ petition and extend relief to the petitioners in the terms prayed for.
Per contra, Dr.Sachin Acharya, learned counsel representing the Rajasthan High Court vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Vikas Balia. He urged that the controversy is under consideration of the competent committee of (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (16 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] the Rajasthan High Court and as such, this Court should refrain from entertaining the issue on the judicial front and the matter may be deferred. However, Dr.Acharya was not in a position to dispute the contention of Shri Balia that the Rajasthan High Court has itself made the requisite amendment in the order of 2002 by placing the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner equivalent to the post of Court Master and that this change has been made effective from 1.1.2006.
Shri Nikhil Dungawat Advocate representing the respondents Nos.3 to 30 vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Dr.Acharya. He relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Satpal Saini reported in AIR 2017 SC 810 and urged that this Court has no power to enact or amend the statutory service rules while exercising the powers of judicial review. He contended that in case, the petitioners are included in the channel of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, the promotional avenues of the respondents and their peers who are working on the posts of Administrative Officer Judicial, Assistant Accounts Officer, Chief Accountant-cum-Administrative Officer Judicial and Guest House Manager Grade-1 shall be adversely affected as the competition for the promotional post will significantly increase. He thus sought dismissal of the writ petition.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the judgments cited at the Bar, the statutory provisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
The controversy regarding equivalence of the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner vis-a-vis the post of Court (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (17 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] Master is no-longer res-integra after the Division Bench decisions of this Court in the above-referred cases of Babu Lal Arora and Suresh Kumar (supra). It may be reiterated that the judgment in the case of Babu Lal Arora (supra) has attained finality as the S.L.P. filed by the Rajasthan High Court was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court by order dated 26.4.2010. Thereafter, Rajasthan High Court has itself adopted the ratio of both the abovereferred decisions by issuing the order dated 30.8.2016 whereby, the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner was designated to be a Gazetted Post and was also placed in the Pay Band No.2 later on modified to Pay Band - L-12. The same Pay Band is applicable to the post of Court Master. It may be stated here that earlier to the judgment of Babu Lal Arora, progression from the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner to a Bench Reader was construed to be a promotion. However, with the decision of Suresh Kumar (supra), it is clear beyond the pale of doubt that progression from the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner to Court Master cannot be construed to be a promotion, and that the third promotion of an incumbent, who had joined as a Junior Judicial Assistant would be as an Assistant Registrar/Court Officer. The direct inference of this factual matrix would be that Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners have to be treated at par with the Court Masters for all exigencies which would include consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrars/Court Officers.
In wake of the above discussion, it is our firm opinion that while issuing the order dated 30.8.2016, the consequential modification of including the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner in Clause 12 of 2002 seems to have been (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (18 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] inadvertently omitted rather than it being a conscious decision of the High Court. The contention of Shri Dungawat, learned counsel representing the respondents No.3 to 30 that any direction to amend the provisions of the orders of 2002 and 2016 would amount to judicial interference in statutory legislation and would be beyond the power of this Court to make judicial review, is absolutely unfounded and is noted just to be negated. The orders of 2002 and 2016 were not framed by the legislature and are simply orders of explanatory nature issued by the Rajasthan High Court on its administrative side so as to ensure compliance of the Hon'ble Division Bench decisions in the cases of Suresh Kumar and Babu Lal Arora (supra) and thus, any direction to amend such order, cannot be construed as amending or enacting a law. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Satpal Saini (supra) has no application to the controversy at hand.
As an upshot, we are in total agreement with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the posts of Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners have to be included in Clause 12 of the order of 2002 and a direction has to be issued that they shall be considered for promotion to the next promotional post i.e. Assistant Registrar/Court Officer.
Now coming to the aspect, as to what should be the date granting relief to the petitioners. Suffice it to say that the petitioners have not made clear in the writ petition, the duration for which, they have been working on their respective posts of Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners. The judgment in the case of Babu Lal Arora (supra) was passed way-back in the year 2002 whereas the judgment in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra) was passed in the year 2009. The petitioners claim to be waiting (Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM) (19 of 19) [D.B.C.W.P. No.6958/2018] in the expectancy that the High Court would redress their grievances on the administrative side and did not agitate this issue upto the year 2017 when for the first time, a representation came to be filed by them to the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, which stands rejected by order dated 7.7.2017. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners have not agitated their cause for a significant period of more than 10 years despite being aware of the prevailing legal and factual situation. It can safely be assumed that in the interregnum, numerous promotions must have taken place from different feeder posts to the post of Assistant Registrar as per entitlement of the respective incumbents. Therefore, there cannot be any cause to unsettle this position by applying this judgment retrospectively at this point of time more so when the petitioners themselves did not agitate their cause timely before any forum without any cause or justification. Thus, this judgment has to be made effective prospectively.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith and suitably modify/amend Clause 12 of the order of 2002 so as to include the posts of Stamp Reporters cum Court Fee Examiners in the feeder cadre for promotion to the next post in the hierarchy i.e. Assistant Registrar/Court Officer.
Costs made easy.
(ABHAY CHATURVEDI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/tarun goyal/
(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:30:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)