Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Sadhana Yadav vs State Of Raj (Education) And Ors on 16 May, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.12132/2011 Smt Sadhana Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors 16.5.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Intjar Ali for petitioner Mr Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel for respondents BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, a direction is sought on the respondents to release benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1998 and 2006 besides senior scale, increments on revised pay.
Learned counsel for respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that alternative remedy of approaching before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur is available with the petitioner thus writ petition may be dismissed.
I have considered submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
The only objection raised on behalf of the respondents is regarding maintainability of the writ petition in view of availability of alternative remedy. Other than the aforesaid, no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and learned counsel submits that it is for the reason that factual report has not been submitted by the Officer Incharge of the case.
It is seen that government takes hardly interest to see early disposal of the cases, rather, replies are not filed at times for years together, whereas, they are expected to file replies immediately on receipt of the notices.
In this case service of notice on the respondents was effected in the month of September, 2011 and copy of the writ petition was even received by the Government Counsel thus for a matter where petitioner is seeking prayer for benefit of Revised Pay Scales, the respondents were expected to file reply at the earliest. The Government Advocates are helpless at times because of non-cooperation of the departmental officers. In any case, this court cannot be a silent spectator for inaction on the part of the government and delay in disposal of the cases, rather, the court should try to dispose of the cases at the earliest. Accordingly, matter has been taken up for consideration.
From the facts on record, petitioner was appointed on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2050. In view of regular appointment in the pay scale, petitioner is entitled to the revision in the pay scale as per Revised Pay Scale Rules applicable from time to time. Petitioner's pay was revised vide Annexure-6 pursuant to the Revision of Pay Scale Rules, 1998 but subsequent to it no revision has been made though in between Sixth Pay Commission made recommendations and Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2006 came into effect from 2008.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extent benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1998 and 2006 to the petitioner. Petitioner would be entitled to the actual benefits of salary as was fixed vide Annexure-6 pursuant to the Fifth Pay Commission and subsequent benefit of further revision of the pay scale as per the Rules of 2008. He would obviously be entitled to regular grade increments on the revised pay and other benefits like selection scale etc as per provisions of law. Compliance of the directions aforesaid may be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Education respondent No.1 to warn the Officer Incharge of this case and ask him to be careful in future otherwise this court would take serious view of the matter.
This disposes of the stay application also.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J