Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajesh Kumar Jain vs State Of Raj And Anr on 10 January, 2019
Author: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writs No. 9122/2018
1. Shakir Ahmed S/o Shri Nanneh Khan, R/o A-54 Gali No. 3
Bais Godam, Jaipur-6.
2. Murari Lal Gupta S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad Gupta,
R/o 56, Prithviraj Nagar, Maharani Farm, Durgapura,
Jaipur.
3. R.n. Saraswat, S/o Shri Jiwan Lal, B-14 Bajaj Nagar
Apartment, Jaipur.
4. Gulshan Arora, S/o Bihari Lal Arora, A/96, Malviya Nagar
Jaipur.
5. Rajesh Katiyar, S/o Late Shri K.p. Katiyar, R/o 164 B, 7Th
Lane, D Block, Gautam Marg, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur.
6. Raj Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Madan Chand Sharma, R/o
A-303, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
7. Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri P.c. Jain, R/o 107,
Mahaveer Nagar Ii, Durgapura, Jaipur.
8. Girraj Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Omkaar Prasad
Sharma, 4/24, Near Water Supply Department, Gandhi
Nagar Jaipur.
9. Alok Sharma S/o Shri Ram Kishor Sharma, R/o C-130,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. All Are Posted As Administrative
Officers Judicial, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench At
Jaipur.
10. Ramphool Gurjar S/o Late Shri Uda Ram Gurjar, R/o 16
Shyam Vihar Colony, Behind Chordiya Petrol Pump,
Sanganer Jaipur.
11. Kailash Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Phool Chand
Sharma, R/o B-121, J.p. Colony, Sector No. 4, Vidhyadhar
Nagar, Jaipur.
12. Rajendra Kumar Soni, S/o Late Shri Pannalal Ji Soni, R/o
D-100, Vidhan Sabha Nagar, Dholai, Near Sunny Enclave,
Mansarovar Jaipur.
13. Prem Babu Paliwal, S/o Shri Roop Kishore Paliwal, R/o
Flat No. 202 Cwc Alina, Radha Nikunj C, Mohana Mandi
Road, Mansarovar Jaipur.
14. Yogesh Sharma, S/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma,
R/o House No. 1985, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar
(2 of 5) [CW-9122/2018]
Jaipur.
15. Anil Mathur, S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Mathur, R/o B-21,
Jagdamba Nagar, Heerapura, Jaipur.
16. Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Nihal Chand, R/o Iv-A-9,
Government Multi Storey Flats, Gandhi Nagar Jaipur.
17. Ghyansham Sen S/o Shri Ram Kishor Sen, R/o 07,
Madhuban Vatika, Agra Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Law And
Legal Affairs Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Civil Writs No. 20292/2017 Rajesh Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Ladu Lal Jain, Resident Of 1803, Fatehpuriyon Ka Darwaja, Choura Rasta, Jaipur-302003, Retired Administrative Officer Judicial, Rajasthan High Court, Bench At Jaipur
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Law And Legal Affairs Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Mr. R.K. Swami for Mr. Rishi Pal Agarwal, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Order (3 of 5) [CW-9122/2018] 10/01/2019 With the consent of the parties, writ petitions have been heard finally and are decided by this common order as the facts as well as legal issue in both the writ petitions are common.
The petitioners are permanent and substantive employee of Rajasthan High Court. They are paid salary in the play scale of the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial). The State of Rajasthan issued a Notification on 01.05.2013 to amend the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002. Sub-rule 1 and 2 were inserted in Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 to provide pay of staff attached to the High Court to be not less than the staff of the same cadre attached to the Sub-ordinate Courts.
The petitioners were promoted to the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial). To find out the equivalent cadre post in the Sub- ordinate Court, a Committee was constituted by the Rajasthan High Court. It identified the equivalent post in Sub-ordinate Court. It is of Senior Munsarim. The report of the Committee was accepted by High Court. In view of amended provision of Rule 21 by the amendment Rules of 2011, the petitioners became entitled for the salary at par to the equivalent post in the Sub-ordinate Courts. The High Court made recommendation to upgrade pay scale and salary of the petitioners but no action in compliance to the recommendation of the High Court has been taken by the State for the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial) while it was accepted for five other posts where also equivalent cadre post in the Sub-ordinate Courts was identified by the Committee.
In view of the above, State Government has implemented recommendation of the High Court in part. Out of seven posts identified by the Committee, pay of five posts has been upgraded (4 of 5) [CW-9122/2018] leaving two, which includes the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial). The reference of Annexure 5 and 7 along with the writ petition has been given to support the arguments.
Learned counsel appearing for the High Court has not disputed the facts narrated above, rather, he has supported the petitioners. It is admitted that after recommendation of the Committee, who identified the equivalent post, it was sent to the State Government to upgrade the pay scale of post of Administrative Officer (Judicial) apart from other six other posts. The pay of five posts have been upgraded in compliance of Rule 21 (1) and (2), as amended leaving post of Administrative Officer (Judicial) and one more post. The letter at Annexures 5 and 7 are the recommendation in favour of petitioners apart from others.
Learned counsel appears for the State Government could not give reasons for not carrying out the recommendation of the High Court to bring petitioners pay at par with their counter parts in the Sub-ordinate Courts. It is stated that the matter is still under consideration with the State Government.
We have considered rival submissions of the parties. It is a case where an amendment was made by the State Government in the Rules of 2002 to bring a provision to allow the pay scale to the staff of the High Court at par with their counter parts in Sub-ordinate Courts. The equivalent posts were identified by Committee constituted by the High Court. It is quite surprising that despite identification of the equivalent post and recommendation of the High Court to allow higher pay/ pay scale to Administrative Officer (Judicial), it has not been carried out by the State Government. It is while accepting it for five other posts.
(5 of 5) [CW-9122/2018] We do not find any justification to keep the matter pending when the benefit claimed by the petitioners is flowing from the amended Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002.
Accordingly, we allow the writ petitions. A direction is given to the State Government to accept the recommendation of Committee/ High Court and, accordingly, to allow the pay to the petitioners equivalent to the pay of Senior Munsarim. The petitioners would be entitled to the consequential benefit. The compliance of this order would be made within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Both the writ petitions are allowed with the aforesaid.
Before parting with the judgment, we observe that the State Government should not keep the recommendation of the High Court pending unnecessarily, as has been done herein. The State Government should carry out the recommendation and directions of the High Court without delay otherwise present litigation could have been avoided.
The writ petitions had to be filed by the petitioners due in- action of the State despite recommendation of the High Court after amendment in the Rules of 2002.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J (M.N. BHANDARI),J S. Kumawat/15-16 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)