SULTAN SINGH Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed to issue directions to the respondent to grant him all admissible grade increments, promotion and other emoluments since April 9,1974, when he was first appointed as a Lower Division Clerk. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as class IV employee in the year 1958, and vide order dated April 9, 1974 he was temporarily appointed as L..D.C. in the pay scale of 110-5-160-8-200-10-230 with other usual allowances. This appointment was for three months, but, subsequently the term was extended from time to time by various orders issued by the Registrar of the High Court. Some orders have been placed on record as Annexures-3 to 8. According to the petitioner, he is continuing on the post of L.D.C. since April 9, 1974, but has not been given the grade increments in spite of several representations made by him and a notice of demand of justice was also given. According to him, he is entitled to get equal salary and annual grade increments like Other L.D.Cs., and the denial of equal benefits is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(2.) The respondent High Court does not dispute (he appointment of the petitioner as L.D.C. in the grade, as alleged by him, but it was pleaded inleralia that he was appointed to work as a Mechanic, as the establishment of the respondent was spending a lot of money in getting repairs of clocks and type-writers from outside. According lo the respondent, looking to the petitioner's capacity as a Machanic, and after examining the financial implications of paying salary in the existing pay scale of L.D.C, it was decided lo put him in the job of Machanic in the grade of L.D.C. Then, it was alleged that since there was no post of mechanic available with the respondent, and the petitioner was posted whole time duty as a mechanic, and for purposes of drawing salary he was placed against the post of L.D.C. It was also pleaded that the petitioner did not hold the minimum qualification of Higher Secondary/Matric, as such he cannot be regularised on the post of L.D.C.

(3.) After considering the various contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed for the simple reason that the petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. on a pay scale mentioned in the appointment order itself. He has continued to work in the same scale, as such there is hardly any justification to deny him the annual increments, which were payable to him as per the appointment order. It may be true that the services of the petitioner are being utilised as a Mechanic, but still the fact remains that he has been appointed in a regular pay scale available to L.D.C. He has been consistently and regularly working for the last 16 years in the pay scale of L.D.C. The plea taken by the respondent is contrary to the appointment letter itself. The respondent cannot deny the petitioner to gel increments as per the appointment order. He also deserves to be confirmed after the expiry of 16 years. The respondent cannot be permitted to take the plea after 16 years that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed on the post of L.D.C.