Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramesh Chandra Sagar vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd on 6 December, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
[1 of 6]
[SAW-990/2012]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 990 / 2012
Ramesh Chandra Sagar S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Sagar, aged
about 50 years, C/o Ram Murari Sagar, Gram Hatigarh, Post
Barkhera, Distt. Bharatpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director,
Hathibhata, Ajmer
2. Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Banswara
3. Asstt. Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Bichhiwara,
District Dungarpur
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 652 / 2013
1. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director, Hathibhata, Ajmer
2. The Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Banswara
3. The Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bichhiwara, District Dungarpur
----Appellants Versus Ramesh Chand Sagar S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Sagar, aged about 57 years, C/o Ram Murli Sagar, Gram Hatigarh, Post Barkhera, District Bharatpur
----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Agrawal For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Sharma in SAW No.990/2012 And For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma For Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Agrawal in SAW No.652/2013 _____________________________________________________ [2 of 6] [SAW-990/2012] HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Judgment 06/12/2017
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We need to decide DB Civil Special Appeal No.652/2013 before deciding the writ appeal filed by the workman.
3. Relevant facts are that the workman was appointed as an Apprentice Trainee pursuant to an order dated 31.1.1975 and a decision was taken by the appellant-Board that those Apprentice Trainees who successfully completed the Apprenticeship would be absorbed and placed in the regular pay scale. The workman had done Apprenticeship as a Welder. Taken an employee w.e.f. 1.4.1977 he was placed in the pay Scale-I one which was ₹55-
118.
4. Issue of pay scales in which workman of the Board were required to be placed was decided by an award popularly known as Singh Sancheti Award and as per the same Welders were to be placed in the pay scale of ₹370-570. On 16.11.1979 the Rajasthan State Electricity Board took a decision in terms of the Singh Sancheti Award that I.T.I. certificate holders who were working with the Board initially as Apprentice or Trainee and thereafter in any other capacity working as Welders would be paid salary in the pay Scale-III, ₹370-570 and as a consequence thereof the workman was placed in the said pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.1979.
[3 of 6] [SAW-990/2012]
5. Issue arose concerning grant of selection scale on completing 9, 18 & 27 years of service. Stand of the appellant- Board is that since the workman was placed in the pay scale ₹370- 570 as a Welder on 1.4.1979 the period shall reckon from 1.4.1979. The case of the workman was that the period would reckon from 1.4.1977 for the reason as per the Singh Sancheti Award the workman got a replacement pay scale.
6. Allowing the writ petition filed by the workman vide order dated 3.4.2012 learned Single Judge directed grant of selection scale reckoning service w.e.f. 1.4.1977 but directed benefit to be notional.
7. The Board filed a review stating that when the writ petition was disposed of paragraph No.2 of a circular dated 6.2.1992 was not considered by the Court. The said paragraph of the circular reads as under :
"The service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years or otherwise as hereinafter prescribed, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment/fixation in the regular pay scale in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Regulations/fixation Rules of the Board. Provided that if an employee subsequent to his first appointment to a regular post as a result of direct recruitment, is appointed/fixed/absorbed/adjusted to some other post in the same cadre or any other cadre or any other cadre, service from the date of later appointment/fixation/ absorption/adjustment shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of selection grade."
8. The proviso was relied upon. Dismissing the review petition vide order dated 27.4.2013 the learned Single Judge has reasoned as under :
[4 of 6] [SAW-990/2012] "Perusal of proviso reveals that if any employee subsequent to his first appointment is appointed / fixed / absorbed / adjusted to some other post as a result of direct recruitment then length of service would be counted from the date of later appointment / fixation / absorption / adjustment. It is not a case of review petitioner that employee herein was given second appointment or fixation pursuant to direct recruitment. In fact, the petitioner-employee was given regular appointment w.e.f. 01.04.1977 as is coming out from the order at Annexure-R/1 dt.05.07.1978 (reply to the writ petition). His pay scale was changed in view of arbitration award given by "Singh & Sancheti" but then it cannot deny length of service for the purpose of selection scale as it can be denied only when it is a case of further direct recruitment resulting in appointment / fixation / absorption / adjustment. Accordingly, proviso to para 2 of the Scheme does not help the review petitioner.
My attention has been further been drawn to a clarification where period of service rendered in other cadre/service before appointment in the existing cadre/service is not to be counted. Again to apply clarification, there has to be event of subsequent appointment which is missing herein. The employee has not been appointed in a different cadre by direct recruitment but it is a case of re-fixation pursuant to arbitration award. The clarification referred by the review petitioner has thus no application. At this stage, learned counsel for review petitioner submits that revised pay scale was of the post of Helper Gr.II and with an improvement, it is stated that even the initial appointment was to the post of Helper thus there is a change in cadre. Learned counsel is however unable to substantiate his argument because Annexure-R/1 makes a reference of the post of Welder trainee and not to the post of Helper and otherwise the post cannot be identified by the pay scale but nomenclature of the post given in the order of appointment itself. In any case, even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted to hold that initial appointment of the employee was on the post of Helper, to attract proviso of Para 2 and clarification, review petitioner is required to show subsequent direct recruitment resulting in appointment / fixation / absorption / adjustment. There is nothing on record to show that subsequent to the first appointment, direct recruitment was made resulting in appointment / fixation / absorption / adjustment. Taking this case from all angles, no ground is made out for review."
[5 of 6] [SAW-990/2012]
9. The question which arises is whether the learned Single Judge has correctly interpreted the proviso in question. The proviso contemplates that an existing employee if appointed to some other post in the same cadre or other cadre, services are required to be reckoned for the purpose of selection scale from the date of appointment / fixation / absorption / adjustment, thus the learned Single Judge has correctly held that it would not apply in a case where the replacement scale as per the Singh Sancheti Award is accorded benefit of.
10. Undisputedly, the workman was treated as a regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.1977. The date 1.4.1979 relates to the date when the replacement scale was accorded. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Electricity Board. DB Civil Special Appeal No.652/2013 is accordingly dismissed.
11. As regards the writ petition filed by the workman the grievance is to the benefit being granted notionally by the learned Single Judge. We find no reason given by the learned Single Judge to give the benefit notional. Notional benefits are normally directed to be given where a person is held to be entitled to a promotion but applying the principles of not having shoulder the responsibility of higher post actual salary is denied. Instant case is whether in-situ benefit of selection scale have to be granted.
12. Thus, DB Civil Special Appeal No.990/2012 is disposed of modifying the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. The workman would be entitled to the actual benefits of the selection scale on rendering 9, 18 & 27 years of service reckoning [6 of 6] [SAW-990/2012] appointment from 1.4.1977.
13. No costs in both the appeals.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),C.J. A.Arora/-19-20.