Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mitthu Lal Teli vs State (Pub Health Engg Dept) Ors on 16 February, 2017
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14456 / 2016
Mitthu Lal Teli S/o Shri Gheesa, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village
Ghanaheda, Tehsil Puskar, District Ajmer (raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14454 / 2016
Puran Singh S/o Shri Kundanmal, Aged About 65 Years, Village
Ghanaheda, Tehsil Puskar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14463 / 2016
Nandan Singh S/o Shri Trilok Singh, Aged About 69 Years, Plot No.
1523/38, Ambe Shree Colony, Vijayan Nagar, Behind Purani
Chungi, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
(2 of 10)
[ CW-14456/2016]
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14464 / 2016
Kalu Ram S/o Shri Bhori Lai, Aged About 62 Years, Dhani Banara,
Village Piliya, Post Fatehpuriya, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Superintending Engineer, City Circle (North), Public Health
Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14465 / 2016
Chandalal S/o Shri Birdhi Chand, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Behind
Post Office, Raigaron Ka Mohalla, Jamawaramgarh, Jaipur (raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajsthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Egineer (Administration), Public Health Enginering
Department,, P.H.E.D Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Superintendent Engineer, City Circle (North), Public Health
Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14466 / 2016
Lallu Lal Meena S/o Shri Bhori Lal Meena, Aged About 63 Years,
Gram Panchyawala, Post Meenawala, Tehsil Bhankrota, District
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
(3 of 10)
[ CW-14456/2016]
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintending Engineer, City Circle (South), Public Health
Engineering Department, Rajasthan Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14467 / 2016
Nathu Singh S/o Shri Ashu Singh, Aged About 65 Years, Village
Ghanaheda, Tehsil Puskar, District Ajmer (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Cheif Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14468 / 2016
Bhagwan Sahai Mali S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Mali, Aged About 66
Years, Ward No. 1, Ringas Road, Chomu, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
Sub Division Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14469 / 2016
(4 of 10)
[ CW-14456/2016]
Sikandar Baig S/o Shri Subrati Baig, Aged About 65 Years,
Hazipur, Srinagar Road, Jilawara, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14471 / 2016
Sunil Kumar Chand S/o Shri G.J. Chand, Aged About 65 Years,
Plot No. 171/50, Mission Compound, Civil Lines, Ajmer (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14474 / 2016
Kishan Lal S/o Shri Mevaram, Aged About 66 Years, Plot No. 21,
Gangapole, Jaipur (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Superintending Engineer, City Circle (North), Public Health
(5 of 10)
[ CW-14456/2016]
Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 14815 / 2016
Bhagwan Meena S/o Shri Nathu Meena, Aged About 60 Years,
Village Chainpura , Post Saipura, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District
Jaipur (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat,jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D., Head Office Campus, Rajasthan,jaipur
3. The Superintending Engineer, City Circle (North),, Public Health
Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 15501 / 2016
Sukhdev Sharma S/o Shri Bansidhar, Aged About 64 Years, Plot
No. 1036, Bagru Walon Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, District
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Superintending Engineer, City Circle (South), Public Health
Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 18523 / 2016
Murlidhar S/o Shri Jamanlal, Aged About 63 Years, Village
Tapipliya, Via Ringus, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
(6 of 10)
[ CW-14456/2016]
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Public
Health Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering
Department, P.H.E.D. Head Office Campus, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Superintending Engineer, City Circle (North), Public Health
Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.C.P.Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Saurabh Saraswat, Dy.Govt.Counsel.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
Order
16/02/2017
After I have heard counsel for the parties, the question
raised in the instant batch of writ petitions remain no more res
integra and the issue has been earlier decided in Sohanlal Mathur
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.3631/2008] decided on 17.11.2008. The operative portion of
the order reads ad infra:-
"In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ
deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is
allowed. The respondents are directed to allow
selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 18
years of service as per para 5 of the notifications dated
25.1.1992 and 17.2.1998. The petitioner is declared
entitled for getting the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600
(Rs.5000-8000) as second selection grade on
completion of 18 years of service and the pay scale of
Rs.5500-9000 on completion of 27 years of service as
the third selection grade. The entitlement as declared
above is required to be executed by the respondents
within a period of six months from today."
The order, referred to above, attained finality after the SLP
(7 of 10)
[ CW-14456/2016]
filed came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 07.09.2012.
At the same time, in the second batch of writ petitions,
which arise from the ld.Tribunal, the State Government preferred
writ petitions and those batch of writ petitions [S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.5505/2015 (Additional Chief Engineer, PHED, Jaipur
Zone, Jaipur & Anr. Vs. Chhiter Mal Meena)] came to be dismissed
confirming order of the ld.Tribunal passed on the basis of the
judgment in the case of Sohanlal Mathur (surpa) and this court
while dismissing the writ petitions preferred at the instance of the
State of Rajasthan observed ad infra:-
"I have given my anxious consideration to rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
Although, it may be true that the Supreme Court, while
dismissing the SLP filed by the State in the matter of
Sohanlal Mathur, supra, had left the question of law
open but what is being argued before this court, cannot
be said to be purely a question of law. It is common
knowledge that the scheme/policy for grant of selection
scales to the employees of the State Government and
its instrumentalities, was introduced with a view to
removing stagnation faced by members of the
ministerial/ subordinate services due to non-grant of
timely promotion and if the Government, while granting
selection scale, does not grant higher emoluments,
then prescription of selection grade, as rightly held by
this court in Sharvan Kumar, supra, shall be of no
consequence. Prescription of same pay scale on grant
of selection grade as that of next selection grade, as
that of the lower grade, would be illusory benefit, being
contrary to the spirit of the scheme. Para 4(i) of the
Circular dated 25.01.1992, which is reiterated in
Circular dated 17.02.1998, provided that first selection
grade, whenever admissible in terms of the said order,
shall be the pay of next promotion post in the same
service/cadre. It further provided that in case, there is
no next promotion post in the same service/cadre or
the employee does not possess the academic
qualification prescribed for promotion and in respect of
the isolated post, the first selection scale shall be the
pay scale corresponding to his pay scale specified in
para 5.
(8 of 10)
[ CW-14456/2016]
Learned Deputy Government Counsel for petitioners
would argue that similar provisions are contained in para 4(i) of the Circular dated 17.02.1998 and the Table of the pay scales available in para 5 of the Circular would be applicable to only isolated posts having no avenue of promotion but that argument is not commensurate with the very language of the aforesaid para 4(i), as it envisages other categories as well, namely, when there is no next promotion post in the selection cadre or where employee does not possess requisite qualification for said promotion. While keeping in view these facts, it has to be decided whether para 5 of the Circular dated 25.01.1992 as also Circular dated 17.02.1998, would be applied in the cases where the department proposes to grant benefit of next selection grade in the same pay scale admissible than the present selection grade. Para 5 of the Circular dated 17.02.1998 indeed provides selection grades when there is no post for first, second or third promotion, as the case may be, in the same service/cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualification prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts.
Contention that in some of these matters, the respondents were work-charged employees and that in their cases, they were made entitled to receive selection grade only in pursuance of Circular dated 04.03.1998 with effect from 01.01.1998, is noted to be rejected for the stated reasons. If these respondents were conferred permanent status on completion of ten years of service, they were thereby brought on regular roll and then became subject to Rajasthan Service Rules, a fact which is not even disputed by the petitioners as they themselves contend that the respondents would not be entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale by grant of second and third selection grade and would be entitled to only additional increment by virtue of Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Having granted benefit of first selection grade to such employees, the petitioners now cannot be allowed to contend that they would not be governed by the scheme contained in Circular dated 25.01.1992. This court in Sharvan Kumar and Sohanlal Mathur, supra, has decided this question in the terms that if the Government do not grant higher emoluments then prescription of selection grade shall be of no consequence. Prescription of same pay scale on completion of 18 years of service as a matter of fact is an illusory benefit and that is not at all grant of selection grade with the spirit of the Circulars/Notifications dated 25.01.1992 and (9 of 10) [ CW-14456/2016] 17.02.1998. This purposive interpretation of para 4 and 5 of the said Circulars has been approved not only by the Division Bench but also by the Supreme Court. This does not involve any question of law and therefore the contention that judgment in Sohanlal Mathur, supra, has not been decided on correct perspective and the matter should be reopened all over again to be decided afresh, cannot be accepted. This court is informed of the fact that the department has made compliance of similar judgments in the case of several employees and therefore, cannot seek to create two classes of employees of the very same Department of the State, who are otherwise similarly situate.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions fail and same are hereby dismissed. Stay applications, filed therewith, are also dismissed.
Since this disposes of bunch of writ petitions, office to place a copy of this order in each file of the bunch."
At the same time, one writ petition filed before the main seat at Jodhpur S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14192/2013 [Gani Khan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] based on the judgment of Sohanlal Mathur (supra) came to be decided on 12.12.2013 and the State preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.589/2014 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gani Khan & Ors.] which came to be dismissed vide order dt.27.05.2014 and the SLP preferred at the instance of the State came to be dismissed vide order dt.16.01.2015.
Thus, it can safely be observed that the issued has been finally settled and remains no more res integra and open to be considered by this court.
Consequently, in the light of the judgment, referred to supra, the present batch of writ petitions deserves acceptance.
Before parting with the order, this court would like to observed that once the issue has been settled by the court that (10 of 10) [ CW-14456/2016] the class of employees of which reference has been made are entitled for the grant of selection scale, in terms of para-5 of the notifications dt.25.01.1992 followed by 17.02.1998, on completion of 18 & 27 years of service, it is expected that the decision of this court may be made applicable in rem to all the employees similarly situated and they shall not be asked to approach this court by filing their respective writ petitions.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to allow selection grade to the petitioners on completion of 18 & 27 years of service as per para-
5 of the Notifications dt.25.01.1992 followed by 17.02.1998.
Necessary compliance be made within four months.
(AJAY RASTOGI)J. Solanki DS, PS/141-154