STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHIVNANDAN LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of both the parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for admission.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Akhil Simlote, counsel for the appellants and Shri SP. Sharma, counsel for the respondents.

(3.) THE respondent-herein pointed out to the Nodal Officer vide his representation dated 25. 3. 1998 that persons who had been granted promotion for the year 1989-90 from the post of School Lecturer to Headmaster, had been given the benefit of Rule 26a. It was also pointed out that he had passed S. T. C. and was an appointee prior to 1961 and that he had done B. Ed. in 1966. It was again pointed out that all the persons, similarly situated, have already been granted the benefit of Rule 26a as their promotion orders were passed prior to 5. 9. 90 itself and that since the respondent's promotion orders were passed after 5. 9. 90 with retrospective effect, he was entitled to be given similar benefit of 26a and he should have been notionally fixed w. e. f. 1989 ad be given all the consequential benefits of higher pension and pensionary emoluments. It was also pointed out that the respondent- herein was not granted the fitment increment of the higher post at the time when the pay scale of Lecturer was equated to that of Headmaster in 1988.