PARVATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are legal representatives of one Bhagwan Singh, who was working on the post of Patwari before his death on October 13, 1995. Grievance of the petitioners is that the deceased employee had completed more than 27 years of service prior to his death but benefit of selection scale in view of `circular 1992' after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service was not given to him. The representations submitted by the deceased employee against communication of some adverse entries were not finalised in his life time. Deceased employee had completed 9 years and 18 years of service in 1977 and 1986, till then he was not communicated any adverse entry. He was informed about the adverse entries relating to the years 1983-84 and 1985-86 for the first time in 1990 against which he submitted representations within the prescribed period and thereafter he was never intimated about the decision taken. The petitioners claimed selection scale on completion of 9 and 18 years of service by the deceased employee by serving notice for demand of justice but the respondents turned down their request on the ground that the deceased employee was punished twice with the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect vide orders dated October 24, 1990 and May 7, 1991 and was also communicated adverse entries for the years 1983-84, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1989-90.

(2.) THE respondents submitted reply to the writ petition stating therein that deceased Bhagwan Singh was appointed as Patwari vide order dated 12. 9. 68 and he died while he was in service on October 13, 1995 as such he completed 27 years of service but his service record was not satisfactory as provided under the notification dated January 25, 1992 and hence he was not entitled to get relief as provided under Notification dated January 25, 1992. It has further been averred that adverse entries for the year 1983-84 were communicated on May 3, 1990, and adverse entries for year 1985-86 were communicated vide notice dated May 3, 1990. Deceased Bhagwan Singh submitted representations and same were rejected and the entries remained intact. Adverse entries for the year 1989-90 were also communicated to deceased Bhagwan Singh and he submitted representation against the same and the representation was also rejected and thus his service record was not satisfactory and hence he was not entitled to be given benefit of Notification dated January 25, 1992.

(3.) THERE is no substance in the contention of the respondents that the circular dated January 25, 1992 cannot be implemented retrospectively. The fallacy in the contention is apparent. The Circular makes it clear in clause 3 that service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing service cadre in accordance with provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules.