RAM PRASAD CHECHANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Ram Prasad Chechani praying therein that the order (Annexure -1) dated September 9,1977 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan and the order (Annexure -2) dated February 13,1979 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal' hereafter may be quashed and that it may be declared that the pay drawn by the petitioner on the post of Accounts Clerk for the purposes of his fixation under Rule 26 -A(2) of the Rajasthan Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was Rs. 180/ - only and not Rs. 172/ - and as such, the pay fixed on the post of Accountant does not exceed by an amount equal to the amount of next increment in the lower post plus the first amount of increment in the higger post, and, so the petitioner is entitled to have his next increment on the date he would have drawn had he continued in the lower post.

(2.) A few facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under: The petitioner was appointed as Accounts Clerk and was working in the time scale of Rs. 130 -8 -170 -10 -210 -15 -300 as applicable to the Accounts Clerks at the relevant time i.e. on February 28,1970. His basic pay was Rs. 162/ -. He was getting Rs. 10/ - as special pay attached to this post since December 31, 1962. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Accountant and he joined his duties as Accountant in the afternoon of February 28,1970 in the pay scale of Rs. 200 -15 -350 -20 -450 -24 -525. His date of increment is December 31 of every year as he was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk on December 31,1962. He was fixed at the minimum in the time scale prescribed for the post of Accountant in accordance with the provisions of Rule 26 -A of the Rules, vide letter No. F. 1(A)(17)/FD/Gr. 2)/77 dated September 9, 1977, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Gr. 2) Department, informed the Project Officer, Small Farmers Development Agency, Bhilwara (respondent No. 3) that Rule 26 -A(2) of the Rules is quite clear in the matter and on promotion, the petitioner has been benefited by Rs. 28/ - and not by Rs. 20/ - and as such, his date of next increment shall be regulated after counting full incremental period under Rule 31 of the Rules. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order (Annexure -1) dated September 9, 1977, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed vide order (Annexure 2) dated February 13, 1979. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a petition (Annexure -3) dated March 2, 1979 to the Governor of Rajasthan. This petition was rejected and an information to this effect was sent to the petitioner vide letter (Annexure -4) dated October 10, 1979. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the reliefs aforesaid.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that Annexure -1 dated September 9, 1977 and Annexure -2 dated February 13, 1979 are manifestly erroneous and the interpretation put on rule 26 -A of the Rules is wrong. He submitted that while holding the post of Accounts Clerk, the petitioner was appointed as Accountant after passing the qualifying examination on February 23, 1970. His initial pay drawn as Accountant was fixed at the minimum i.e. Rs. 200/ - and that prior to this, he was working as Accounts Clerk and was receiving Rs. 162/ - pay + Rs. 10/ - as special pay. According to him,by order of the Finance Department dated July 18,1968 inserted as an exception No. I under Rule 26 -B of the Rules, for fixation of pay as Accountant, his pay should have been notionally treated as Rs. 180(160 + 10) and next stage equal to Rs. 180/ -). According to the learned Counsel, this is an amount to be treated as 'pay drawn' under the said Finance Department memo. He further submitted that notwithstanding the notional pay drawn by him as Accounts Clerk being treated as Rs. 180, his pay as Accountant was fixed at Rs. 200/ - per month being the minimum of the scale of pay and not by virtue of any notional fixation. The second argument in this connection was that under Rule 26 -A(2) of the Rules, since the petitioner had not been benefitted as an Accountant by more than the aggregate of next increment in the post of Accounts Clerk and amount of next increment in the post of Accountant, his date of further increment under Rule 31 of the Rules should remain unchanged In other words, according to the learned Counsel his next increment should accrue with reference to his date of increment on the post of Accounts Clerk and not after one year of duty after his appointment as an Accountant.