Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India And Ors vs Rajeev Pareek And Ors on 18 July, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7459 / 2010
1. Union of India Through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry
of Mines, Secretariat, New Delhi.
2. The Geological Survey of India Through Its Director General,
27, Chowringhee, Kolkata.
3. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Western
Region, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajeev Pareek S/o Shri Hans Raj Pareek, Aged About 35 Years,
50, Laxman Colony, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Kamlesh Tanwar S/o Shri Ganga Sahai Tanwar, Aged About 33
Years, Plot No. C 69 A, Siwar Area-I, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302015.
3. Rajesh Yogeshwar S/o Shri Shankar Nath, Aged About 33 Years,
10 B, Krishnapuri Hatwara Rd., Sodala Jaipur.
4. Chandra Shekhar S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
Plot No. 12, Gopal Nagar, Near Chitrakoot Sector 9, DCM, Ajmer
Rd. Jaipur.
5. Shivji Ram Yogi S/o Malua Ram Yogi, Aged About 37 Years,
61/22, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
6. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur Through
Its Registrar
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Mathur.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS
Judgement
18/07/2017
(1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2 of 4)
[CW-7459/2010]
(2) The respondents were working as Draftsmen under the
Geological Survey of India, Western Region at Jaipur. Of the five
applicants before the Tribunal, three had joined services in
December, 1995 and the other two in the year 1996-1997. Their
grievance was of not being placed in the pay scale ₹ 5000-8000/-
in terms of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules,
1997 which came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The claim of the
applicants was to be placed in the applicable pay scale from the
date they had joined services.
(3) The Union of India predicated its claim on an Office
memorandum which contemplate three years residency period for
being placed in the pay scale ₹ 5000-8000/- for the post of a
Draftsman.
(4) The central argument before the Tribunal was that
when the recommendations of the 5 th Central Pay Commission
were implemented the concept of 3 years residency period was
not envisaged.
(5) The Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal vide an order dated
March 18, 2004 granted relief to the Draftsmen before it and held
that the concept of residency introduced was irrelevant.
(6) Similar view was taken by the Bombay Bench of the
Tribunal in O.A. No.2101/2004.
(7) The impugned judgment notes that the decisions of the
Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal and the Bombay Bench of the
Tribunal have been implemented.
(3 of 4)
[CW-7459/2010]
(8) That apart, the Tribunal has independently looked into
the issue once again with reference to the Rules of 1997. Vide
Rule 3(5) revised scale has been defined. It means a revised
scale in relation to any posts specified under Part-B of the first
schedule means "that scale of pay specified thereto unless a
different revised scale is notified separately for that post".
(9) The Schedule has been defined to mean a Schedule
annexed to the Rules. The first schedule has been issued under
Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1997. Part-A of the first Schedule
mention grade-wise present scale as well as corresponding revised
scale whereas Part-B of the said schedule prescribe the present
scale; as well as revised pay scale in respect of posts. Under Part-
B of the first schedule at item No.X under heading 'Drawing Office
Staff' scale of three posts had been mentioned. The same have
been reproduced by the Tribunal as under : -
Sl.NO. Posts Present Scale Revised Scale Para No.of
Report
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
............
"X.DRAWING OFFICE STAFF
(a) Draftsman Gr.II/Sr. Draftsman 1400-40-1800-50-2300 5000-150-8000- 50.37
(b) Draftsman Gr.I/Head Draftsman 1600-50-2300-60-2660 5500-175-9000 50.37
(c) Graduate Engineer 1400-40-1800-50-2300 6500-200-10500 50.37 Recruited against 1600-50-2300-60-2660 Posts of drawing/design Office 2000-60-2300-75-3200 In subodinate Engg. Cadres."
(4 of 4) [CW-7459/2010] (10) The reasoning of the Tribunal with reference thereto in para 6 of the impugned order. It reads as under : -
"Here we are concerned with the post at item-(a) i.e. Draftsman Gr.II which was in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and the revised scale has been mentioned as Rs. 5000-8000. Since the post of Draftsman has been mentioned at Item No.X. part-B of first schedule, the corresponding pay scale of the said post has to be as per column-4 which is Rs. 5000-8000. Thus, it was not open for the respondents to apply Part-A of the first schedule in the case of the applicants and pay of the applicants was to be revised in terms of the pay scale mentioned under Part-B where the post of Draftsman has categorically been mentioned. Had the post of Draftsman was not mentioned in Part-B of the first schedule, in that eventuality, it was permissible for the respondents to revised the pay scale of the applicants in terms of Part-A of first schedule. Thus on this ground also the corresponding scale of Rs. 1400-2300 of the category of Draftsman working in GSI department comes to Rs. 5000-8000. Thus, looking to the matter from any angle, we are of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of relief."
(11) Indeed the reasoning by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with.
(12) The writ petition is dismissed. (13) No costs. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),C.J N.Gandhi/15