PRASHANT BOHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners seek the relief of grant of salary in the pay scale of Rs. 3200- 85-4900 from the date of their initial appointment and the arrears of salary alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this writ petition are that in pursuance of the advertisement No. 1/99 dated 26-2-99 issued by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, the petitioners applied for the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv. As per the advertisement itself, the said posts were carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3200-85-4900/ -. THE petitioners qualified the written examination and they were declared successful. Meanwhile, a ban was imposed on appointment and after lifting of the ban, they were given appointment vide orders dated 28-10-99 and 15-11-99 on the consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month. THEreafter petitioners were sent for training and they completed the same. THE grievance of the petitioner is that as per the terms of the advertisement itself, the post in question was carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3200-85- 4900/- and as such giving appointment to them on the consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of the advertisement itself. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) IN Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amaravati & Ors. (8), the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarised the law of acquiescence observing that once an order is passed and accepted by the party, it derives benefit and advantage from it for some time, it would amount to acquiescence and such a party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of the order.