Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Lal Mali vs Maharana Pratap Univer. Of A & T &Ors on 23 August, 2011
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
ORDER
Bhanwar Lal Mali
vs.
Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology,
Udaipur & Ors.
S. B . CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.775/2009
Date of Order :: 23.8.2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioner/s.
Mr. G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajesh Punia for
the respondents.
....
BY THE COURT :
By this petition for writ, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2/5.12.2008 (Annex.-8) passed by the Comptroller of Finance, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur.
In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner entered in the services of the respondent-University being appointed as a Class IV employee on 13.2.1968. An appointment was given to the petitioner under an order dated 17/18.12.1981 as Driver in the pay-scale of Rs.355-570. After serving for a period of about more than 40 years the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2008. The respondents during the service career of the petitioner allowed him all selection grades as required, by treating 13.2.1968 as the date of his initial appointment and 2 treating appointment to the post of Driver w.e.f. 18.12.1981, as promotion.
After retirement of the petitioner, the Comptroller of Finance instructed to the Dean, College of Technology and Engineering to allow selection grades to the petitioner by treating 18.12.1981 as the date of his initial appointment to the post of Driver. The instructions so given and the fixation of pay sought to be made in accordance with the instructions given is under challenge in this petition for writ.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology Non-teaching Staff Recruitment and Promotion Rules, a Class IV employee is having an avenue for promotion to the post of Driver and the respondents by adhering the same promoted the petitioner as Driver. As such, the appointment by way of promotion could not be held a fresh appointment. As per the petitioner, his date of initial appointment is 13.2.1968 in Class IV cadre. The decision of the respondents to treat the petitioner a fresh appointee to the post of Driver w.e.f. 17/18.12.1981, therefore, is absolutely erroneous.
Per contra, as per the respondents, the appointment given to the petitioner under the order dated 17/18.12.1981 was a fresh appointment and therefore, no cognizance of services rendered by him prior to that in the capacity of Class IV employee can be taken.
3
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that at the first instance, the petitioner was employed with the respondent-University as Class IV employee, and he was confirmed on that post. It is also admitted that while making appointment to the post of Driver under the order dated 17/18.12.1981 no process for direct recruitment was conducted. It is also the position admitted that as per applicable rules, a Class IV employee is having an avenue for promotion to the post of Driver. The respondents have also not denied that by treating 13.2.1968 as the date of initial appointment of the petitioner, selection grades were given to him throughout, prior to issuance of order impugned. The respondents themselves were treating the petitioner an employee initially appointed to the Class IV cadre, to whom promotion was given to the post of Driver in the year 1981. It is also relevant to note that by treating appointment to the post of Driver as promotion, no first selection grade was given to him. Only second and third selection grades were accorded on completion of 18 and 27 years of service by the petitioner. It is quite strange that only after retirement of the petitioner, the Comptroller (Finance) instructed to reckon petitioner's service for grant of selection grades from the date of his appointment as Driver, which on its face appears to be erroneous. The petitioner was serving with the respondents since 1968. An avenue for promotion to the post of Driver as Class IV employee is available under the Rules. True it is, the reference of promotion is not 4 given in the order of appointment as Driver, but that is nothing accept the promotion in view of the fact that no process to make direct recruitment was adhered and the respondents themselves were treating that appointment as promotion for about 30 years. The respondents also failed to point out any decision taken by them in the year 1981 to fill-in the post of Driver by way of direct recruitment.
After utilising services of the petitioner in Class IV cadre and on the post of Driver for a period of 40 years, it shall be highly arbitrary to ignore the service rendered by the petitioner from the year 1968 to 1981 for determination of his post retiral benefits, by treating the appointment on the post of Driver as a fresh appointment by way of direct recruitment.
The petition for writ, thus, deserves acceptance, hence, is allowed. The instruction issued by the Comptroller under the letter dated 2/5.12.2008 (Annex.8) is declared illegal, accordingly, the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to release pensionary benefits and all other retiral benefits to the petitioner on basis of pay last drawn by him, by treating 13.2.1968 as the date of his initial appointment to the post of Class IV cadre, and by treating his appointment to the post of Driver as promotion.
No order as to costs.
( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.
rm/