Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sushila Aggarwal vs . State & Ors. on 26 September, 2014
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6701/2014.
Smt. Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors.
Final Order dated 26.09.2014
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
:: ORDER ::
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6701/2014.
Smt. Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors.
..
Date of Order :::: 26th September, 2014.
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Appearance:
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner.
--
BY THE COURT:
1. The petitioner working as a Lady Supervisor in the respondent - Women and Child Development Department has approached this Court by way of present writ petition filed on 22.09.2014 with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and the :
(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant selection grades to the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of continuous S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6701/2014.
Smt. Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors.
Final Order dated 26.09.2014 2/5 service, with all consequential benefits, including differences of pay, fixation and arrears etc.
(ii) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit may be granted in favour of the petitioner."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the newly created post of Lady Supervisor in the year 1985 and she was granted her first selection scale upon completion of 9 years' of service in the year 1997 under the Notification of the Finance Department bearing number एफ 20(1) व त/गप-2/92/ द न क 25.1.92 vide order Annexure-9 dated 03.06.2000. Thereafter, the second selection scale was granted to the petitioner upon completion of 18 years' service w.e.f. 07.06.2006 vide order Annexure-11 dated 15.09.2007 which is, according to the petitioner, not correct. The learned counsel submitted that the initial period of service of the petitioner should be counted from the year 1989.
3. The controversy with regard to granting of selection grades has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in (2009) 12 SCC 49, resolving the controversy with regard to the grant of selection grades, wherein it has held that the benefit of selection grade can be given only from the date of regular appointment and not from the date of initial/ad hoc appointment.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6701/2014. Smt. Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors.
Final Order dated 26.09.2014 3/5 The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is quoted herein below for ready reference: -
"Appellant Government framed a scheme for grant of stagnation benefits to those employees who had rendered, 9, 18 and 27 years of service. G.O. dated 25.1.1992 issued by the appellant Government in this regard used the expression "appointment in the existing cadre/service". The word "regular" was not used before this expression but the position regarding regular service was clarified in subsequent G.O. dated 17.2.1998.
Respondent employees who had initially been appointed on ad hoc, daily wages and work- charged basis contended that length of service in their cases should be counted from the date of their initial appointment and not from the dates of their regularisation because the express "appointment in the existing cadre/service" was not qualified by the word "regular" in G.O. dated 25.1.1992. High Court accepted this contention.
Reversing the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held:
18. In order to become "a member of service" a candidate must satisfy four conditions, namely,
(i)the appointment must be in a substantive capacity;
(ii)to a post in the service i.e. in a substantive vacancy, S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6701/2014. Smt. Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors.
Final Order dated 26.09.2014 4/5
(iii)made according to rules;
(iv)within the quota prescribed for the source. Ad hoc appointment is always to a post but not to a cadre/service and is also not made in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules for regular appointment."
Promotion has to be from the existing cadre in service. Ad hoc appointments are not made in terms of rules. In case of ad hoc employees, stagnation is till regularisation is made. The stress in the present case is on regular appointment to cadre/service. The question of promotion arises only when appointment is a regular appointment. Appointment to the post is not relevant; on the other hand, what is relevant is the period relatable to cadre of the service. While reckoning the required length of service, the period of ad hoc service has to be excluded.
The High Court failed to appreciate that the recruitment rules made a distinction between distinction between appointments made to the cadre/service in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules which are regular and appointments made de hors the regular Recruitment Rules which are ad hoc.
Although the adjective "regular" was not used before the words "appointment in the existing cadre/service" in para 3 of the G.O. dated 25.1.1992 which provided for selection pay scale, S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6701/2014. Smt. Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors.
Final Order dated 26.09.2014 5/5 the appointment mentioned there is obviously a need for regular appointment made in accordance with the recruitment rules. What was implicit in the said paragraph of the G.O when it refers to appointment to a cadre/service has been made explicit by the clarification dated 3.4.1993 given in respect of point No. 2. The same has been incorporated in para 3 of the G.O. dated 17.2.1998."
4. Since, the petitioner has already approached the respondents by way of submitting suitable representation in this regard, the writ petition filed before this Court is considered premature. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged grant of first selection scale which was granted to her in the year 1997 during the relevant point of time, grant of second selection grade in the year 2006 cannot possibly be challenged by the petitioner now at this stage.
5. Be that as it may. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue her representation or may file suitable representation raising all the points which are sought to be raised in this writ petition to the respondents and the respondents are expected to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
/Mohan/ / 24 /