Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Singh vs The Jalore Cen.Co.Bank & Anr on 20 October, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014
a/w 7 other connected matters
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
1. CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014
PETITIONER :
Amar Singh S/o Shri Chandan Singh Rajput, aged 52
years, R/o 40 Meheshpura, Jalore.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. The Jalore Central Cooperative bank Ltd. Jalore
through Managing Director.
2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Govt. of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 7803 of 2014
PETITIONER :
Chain singh son of Shri Babusingh Rajput aged 56
years resident of village Chandan Post Bhanwarani
Teshil Jalore.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. The Jalore Central Cooperative bank Ltd. Jalore
through Managing Director.
2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Govt. of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 7808 of 2014
PETITIONER :
Salim Khan son of Shri Jalal Khan Musalman aged 59
years resident of Upar Kota, Jalore.
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014
a/w 7 other connected matters
2
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. The Jalore Central Cooperative bank Ltd. Jalore
through Managing Director.
2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Govt. of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
4. CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 7809 of 2014
PETITIONER :
Inder singh son of Shri Bhairu singh Rajput aged 57
years resident of village Bera Tehsil Bali Distt. Pali.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. The Jalore Central Cooperative bank Ltd. Jalore
through Managing Director.
2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Govt. of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
5. CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 7810 of 2014
PETITIONER :
Dhan raj son of Shri Bhairu lal Sewak aged 53 years
resident of village Karda Tehsil Raniwara Distt. Jalore,
Rajasthan. Second address: 191, Asha purna colony,
Jalore.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. The Jalore Central Cooperative bank Ltd. Jalore
through Managing Director.
2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Govt. of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014
a/w 7 other connected matters
3
6. CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 7811 of 2014
PETITIONER :
Kistoora Ram son of Sri Hira ram Meghwal aged 54
years resident of Balupura Post Bankli Tehsil Sumerpur,
Distt. Pali.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. The Jalore Central Cooperative bank Ltd. Jalore
through Managing Director.
2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Govt. of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
7. CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 7812 of 2014
PETITIONER :
Bhaira ram son of Sri Ramchand Bishnoi aged 58 years
resident of Karda Tehsil Raniwara, Distt. Jalore.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. The Jalore Central Cooperative bank Ltd. Jalore
through Managing Director.
2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Govt. of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
8. CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 7813 of 2014
PETITIONER :
Dilip Kumar Vyas son of Shri Mangilal Brahmin aged 52
years resident of village Guda Balotang Tehsil Ahor
Distt Jalore.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014
a/w 7 other connected matters
4
1. The Jalore Central Cooperative bank Ltd. Jalore
through Managing Director.
2. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Govt. of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
Date of Judgment : 17.10.2016
HON'BLE MR. SANDEEP MEHTA,J.
MR. SANJAY KAPOOR, for the Petitioners.
MR. BS SANDHU ) for the Respondents
MS. KUSUM RAO )
JUDGMENT
--------
The instant bunch of writ petitions involves common questions of facts and law and is thus being decided together by this single order.
The petitioners herein are all employees of Jalore Central Cooperative Bank. They were working on the post of Managers (Vyavasthapaks) in various Primary Agriculture Credit Society (for short, 'PACS'). By giving them benefit of channel of promotion available under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 (for short 'the Rules of 2003'), all the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Loan Supervisors in Jalore Central Cooperative Bank and their respective pay scales were altered and fixed from that applicable to CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 5 PACS managers to the one admissible to Loan Supervisors. As PACS managers, the petitioners were drawing salary of Rs.4295/- per month. However, after their promotion as Loan Supervisors, their pay scales came to be fixed at Rs.3230/- per month only, which is lesser than the payscale drawn by them on the lower post upon which, the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for removing the apparent pay anomaly. In order to demonstrate the apparent reduction in the pay scale, the petitioners have placed on record copy of order dated 17.10.2008 whereby, they were promoted as Loan Supervisors. It is asserted in the writ petitions that no statutory Rules are operating so as to govern the pay scales of the employees upon promotion from PACS Manager to Loan Supervisors in the Central Cooperative Bank. Thus, they claim benefit of Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the RSR Rules') which provides that the pay in the higher post shall be fixed so as to be not lower than the pay drawn in the lower post. The petitioners have made a prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to give them the benefit of enhancement/stepping up of pay as per Rule 26A of CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 6 the Rajasthan Service Rules and to place them at a pay scale one stage higher than what they were drawing as PACS managers with consequential benefits.
The respondent Bank has filed a reply to the writ petition wherein an objection is raised that the relevant Service Rules do not provide for any promotional avenue from the post of PACS Manager to Loan Supervisor. It is asserted that as a matter of fact the petitioners were directly selected on the post of Loan Supervisors and were not promoted as such and, therefore, they were only entitled to the pay scale admissible to a freshly recruited Loan Supervisor which was conferred upon them as per their entitlement.
Mr.Sanjay Kapoor learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the stand taken by the respondent Bank in its reply that the selection to the post of Loan Supervisor is by way of direct recruitment, is totally fallacious. He relied upon the following portion of the order/circular dated 9.3.2005 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur while exercising powers under Rule 39 of the Rules of 2003 to govern selections on the posts of Loan Supervisors :-
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 7 ¼x½ inksUufr gsrq izfdz;k ¼1½ inksUufr dh J`[a kyk ¼v½ jktLFkku jkT; lgdkjh cSad fy0 Dz-la- fooj.k 1 lgk;d deZpkjh ls cSfa dx lgk;d 2 cSafdax lgk;d ls izcU/kd 3 izcU/kd ls ofj"B izcU/kd 4 ofj"B izcU/kd ls lgk;d egk izcU/kd 5 lgk;d egk izcU/kd ls mi egk izcU/kd 6 mi egk izcU/kd ls egk izcU/kd ¼c½ jktLFkku jkT; lgdkjh Hkwfe fodkl cSda fy0 Dz-la- fooj.k 1 lgk;d deZpkjh ls cSfa dx lgk;d 2 cSafdax lgk;d ls izcU/kd 3 izcU/kd ls ofj"B izcU/kd 4 ofj"B izcU/kd ls lgk;d egkizcU/kd 5 lgk;d egkizcU/kd ls mi egkizcU/kd ¼l½ dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSDa l Dz-la- Csafdax LVkWQ QhYM LVkWQ 1 lgk;d deZpkjh ls cSfa dx lgk;d isDl O;oLFkkid ^^[k^^ xzsM ls _.k i;Zos{kd 2 cSafdax lgk;d ls izcU/kd _.k i;Zos{kd ls lgk;d vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh 3 izcU/kd ls ofj"B izcU/kd 4 ofj"B izcU/kd ls eq[; izcU/kd and urged that it is clearly provided in the circular that the selection to the post of Loan Supervisor is to be CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 8 done by way of promotion from the cadre of PACS Managers. He further urged that it is clearly mentioned in the Schedule provided under the Rules of 2003, that the posts of Loan Supervisor are to be filled in 100% by selection from PACS Managers and that such selection is purely by way of promotion. He further pointed out that the order dated 27.2.2008 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies which has been relied upon by the respondent Bank, particularly, following paragraph thereof, tgka inksUur@p;fur O;oLFkkid orZeku esa isDl eSuts j ds :i esa dh ewy osru + eagxkbZ HkRrk izkIr dj jgs gSa mldh dqy jkf'k ;fn cSad esa _.k i;Zos{kd ds osru dh vkjfEHkd osru + cSda esa izHkkoh eagxkbZ HkRrs dks feyk dj vf/kd jkf'k vkgfjr gks jgh gks rks ogka ,sls O;oLFkkid dks _.k i;Zo{s kd dh izHkkoh osru J`a[kyk esa ml LVst ij fLFkfjdj.k fd;k tk;sxk tgka ij mlds osru dh orZeku osru + eagxkbZ HkRrs dh jkf'k dh dqy jkf'k dh isjfs V ¼lerqY;rk½ cuh jgs D;ksafd inksUufr ij osru de ugha gksuk visf{kr gS A cgwr dqN laHko gSa fd ,DtsDV isjsfV ugha cu ldsxh] ysfdu _.k i;Zos{kd dh izHkkoh osru J`[a kyk esa ml LVst ij U;qure :i ls fQDl fd;k tk;sxk tgka ls mldk osru orZeku vkgfjr osru ls de ugha gksrk gks A blls bl Js.kh ds O;oLFkkid orZeku esa vkgfjr osru ls vf/kd Hkh vkgfjr dj ldsxa s A also refers to the promotion of PACS Managers to Loan Supervisors. He urged that the rationale behind the order dated 27.2.2008 is absolutely contrary to the mandate of Rule 26A of the RSR because the same CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 9 does not provide for upgradation of pay despite promotion. He urged that a similar controversy was raised by the employees of Barmer Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. The matter was carried to Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal which decided the dispute by judgment dated 3.6.2015 ruling that PACS Managers of the Cooperative Societies upon being promoted to the post of Loan Supervisors in the Cooperative Bank, are entitled to upgradation of pay in accordance with Rule 26A of the RSR. He urged that the said order of the Cooperative Tribunal was never challenged and has attained finality and, therefore, all Cooperative banks in the State of Rajasthan are bound and governed by the said judgment. He also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of "Jitendra Kumar Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9001/2006) decided on 9.10..2014 and urged that the controversy involved in the case at hand is squarely covered by the ratio of the said judgment and that the respondent Bank is under an obligation to grant benefit of pay protection and upgradation in salary to the petitioners upon promotion as Loan Supervisors.
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 10 Per contra, learned counsel Mr.B.S. Sandhu representing the respondent Bank and Ms.Kusum Rao representing the respondent Cooperative Department vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel and urged that the petitioners' selection to the post of Loan Supervisors was not by way of promotion but was through direct recruitment. As such, they were required to be placed in the lowest pay scale admissible to the Loan Supervisors in the Cooperative Bank. They thus urged that no illegality or perversity is reflected in the action of the Bank in not acceding to the demand made by the petitioners for protection of pay scale by resorting to Rule 26A of RSR. They invited the Court's attention to the order Annex.1 dated 17.10.2008 fixing the petitioners' salary upon selection as Loan Supervisors. They urged that the petitioners other than Salim Khan and Bhera Ram were getting total pay of Rs.8,075/- per month (Rs.4,295/- basic pay + Rs.3,780/- DA) as PACS Managers and pursuant to their selection as Loan Supervisors, they are drawing total pay of Rs.8,287/- per month (Rs.3,230/- basic pay + Rs.5,057/- DA). The petitioner Salim Khan was getting total pay of Rs.7,905/- per CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 11 month (Rs.4,205/- basic pay + Rs.3,700/- DA) as PACS Manager, whereas, upon his selection as Loan Supervisor, he is drawing total pay of Rs.7,928/- per month (Rs.3,090/- basic pay + Rs.4,838/- DA). The petitioner Bhera Ram was getting total pay of Rs.6,862/- per month (Rs.3,650/- basic pay + Rs.3,212/- DA) as PACS Manager, whereas, upon his selection as Loan Supervisor, he is drawing total pay of Rs.7,209/- per month (Rs.2,810/- basic pay + Rs.4,399/- DA). It was attempted to be demonstrated by the above statistics that the petitioners stand monetarily profited upon their selection as Loan Supervisors. It was further urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per the order dated 9.3.2005 and the Schedule annexed thereto, relied upon by the petitioners, it is evident that 100% posts of Loan Supervisors are to be filled through selection from amongst PACS Managers. As per them, the selection is through direct recruitment and not by way of promotion as claimed by the petitioners. They thus urged that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petition.
I have considered the rival arguments and have CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 12 perused the material available on record as well as the judgments cited at the Bar.
The first bone of contention between the litigating parties is as to whether the appointment of the petitioners as Loan Supervisors was by direct recruitment or by way of promotion from their original cadre of PACS Managers. Suffice it to say that the order dated 9.3.2005 (Annex.14) issued by the Registrar exercising powers under Rule 39 of the Rules of 2003 and the Schedule appended thereto (which governs such selection) clearly provides that the feeder cadre for filling the posts of Loan Supervisors is that of PACS Manager. In the Clause (gha) of the said order, the channels of promotion are stipulated. One of these channels of promotion as reflected in clause (gha) quoted supra is from the post of PACS Manager to the post of Loan Supervisor. 100% of the posts of Loan Supervisor as per the Schedule annexed to the said order are to be filled in from the cadre of PACS Managers. The Schedule further provides that the process of filling the posts of Loan Supervisors will be by selection. On going through the Schedule, it is further evident that for numerous other posts viz., CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 13 Financial Analyst, Computer Programmer, Banking Assistants, wherever so intended, the mode of filling the posts is specifically provided to be through direct recruitment. In the cadre of Manager D-Grade, 60% posts are to be filled by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment. Therefore, it is evident that wherever it was desired by the Legislature that the mode of filling the posts would be direct recruitment, it was specifically, stipulated as such in the Schedule. Had the intention of the Statute been that the posts of Loan Supervisor should be filled by direct recruitment, it definitely would have been so specified in the Schedule.
As a consequence of the discussion made herein above, I am of the firm opinion that the action of the respondent bank in treating the petitioners' appointment on the post of Loan Supervisors to be by way of direct recruitment rather than by way of promotion from the cadre of PACS Manager is totally unjust, illegal and contrary to the statutory orders governing the selections. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners' selection as Loan Supervisors in the Bank was definitely by way of promotion.
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 14 Now coming to the second aspect of the matter i.e. the claim of the petitioners for being granted higher pay scale as compared to what they were drawing as PACS Managers. Suffice it to say that as per principles of administrative law, promotion without consequent upgradation in salary is incomprehensible. Admittedly, pay scales admissible to Loan Supervisors upon promotion from the post of PACS Managers are not stipulated in the statutory orders. Thus, indisputably, their pay scales upon promotion are required to be governed by Rule 26A of RSR. This Court examined in detail in the case of Jitendra Kumar Saxena (supra) an identical controversy and held that a promotee cannot be granted basic pay scale lower than what he was drawing on the post from which he was promoted.
The respondent Bank has taken recourse of the chart Annex.A/1 in order to claim that as a matter of fact, the petitioners are being paid more amount upon their selection as Loan Supervisors as compared to what they were drawing as PACS Managers. However, the split up details which have been set out in the chart clearly spell out that the basic salary of the petitioners has been reduced pursuant to their promotion. Most of CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 15 the petitioners herein were drawing basic pay to the tune of Rs.4,295/- per month as Loan Supervisor which has been reduced to Rs.3,230/- per month. Thus, evidently, the promotion of the petitioners has proved detrimental to them as regards the pay scales drawn by them. Such a course of action is impermissible in view of Rule 26A of the RSR.
Thus evidently, the action of the respondents in placing the petitioners in a lower pay scale from what they were drawing in the feeder post upon their promotion from the post of PACS Managers to the post of Loan Supervisors is absolutely unjust, illegal and arbitrary and the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petitions.
As a consequence of the above discussion, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to upgrade the basic pay of the petitioners in accordance with Rule 26A of the RSR by applying the said rule in letter and spirit. The petitioners shall also be entitled to consequential monetary benefits flowing from the above direction. The entire exercise as directed above shall be completed within a period of six months, failing which the accrued amount shall carry interest at the CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 6996 of 2014 a/w 7 other connected matters 16 rate of 7.5% per annum.
No order as to cost.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.
( SANDEEP MEHTA ),J.
S.Phophaliya/-