VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Vs. RAJ.HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a serving Judicial Officer of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, seeks judicial intervention for annulment of the administrative decision(s) rejecting his representations claiming grant of Selection Grade Scale of Pay of District Judge Cadre with effect from the year 2006 and a consequential direction to confer upon him the above benefit. We have heard Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.R.Punia, learned Sr.Advocate, assisted by Mr.Rajesh Punia, for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner by order dated 3.5.2001 issued by the Department of Law and Legal Affairs, Govt. of Rajasthan, was appointed as Additional District & Sessions Judge in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service., he having been placed at S.No.6 therein in order of merit. One Shri Ramchandra Singh Jhala too, was so appointed on selection and was inducted at S.No.7 in order of merit. Incidentally, their placement in the list was at S.Nos.5 and 6, though their ranking in order of merit was indicated in the order aforementioned. According to the petitioner, he, on such appointment, discharged his duties with sincerity and dedication and in course thereof, was transferred in the year 2006 as Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara and he joined thereat on 1.7.2006. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (for short hereinafter referred to as "the High Court"), he has averred, vide Circular dated 5.2.2004 notified the "Revised Standard of Work" comprised of norms to adjudge the performance of the presiding officers of the Subordinate courts. Whereas amongst others, Clause 6 thereof enjoined that the merit of an officer would also be adjudged by the quality of his work, which, by no means, would permit him/her to depart therefrom for the sake of quantity. Clause 9 postulated that the norms would not be enforced for the quarter in which the charge is taken over at a new station. The petitioner has pleaded that after a short stint as the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara, he was posted as Judge, Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner, by order issued in the month of May, 2007. While posted thereat, he received letter No.PA/RG/5(1)2008/140 dated 9.5.2008 from the Registrar General of the High Court indicating him that for the year 2006 (from 1.7.2006 to 31.12.2006), an advisory remark "disposal of work is inadequate" had been recorded in his A.C.R. On receipt thereof, petitioner submitted a representation on 19.6.2008 to the respondent No.2 reciting the reasons for the insufficient disposal of work. He inter alia pointed out that though in the quarter commencing from 1.7.2006 to 30.9.2006, his disposal was 40.24%, in the subsequent quarter i.e. 1.10.2006 to 31.12.2006, it had ascended to 165.41%, which, according to him, was above the percentage of work, prescribed in the Circular dated 5.2.2004. He, thus, requested for the expunction of the above referred remarks, which he considered to be of adverse bearing. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2, subsequent thereto, vide letter dated 28.7.2008 communicated to him that the remark "disposal of work is inadequate" has been treated to be advisory and that the same would not come in the way of promotion or grant of scale.

(3.) Referring to the prescription for grant of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale Grade in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No.1022/1989 "All India Judges Association & others vs. Union of India & others and the recommendation of the First National Judicial Pay Commission, the petitioner has pleaded that he was entitled for the Selection Grade in the year 2006-2007 and, thus, on 21.8.2008, he registered his claim therefor. However, in the list of the officers notified in the order No.Estt.(RJS)/11/2011 dt.21.1.2011 of the Registry of this court, granting Selection Scale of Pay of District Judge Cadre, he was shown to have been awarded the said benefit with effect from 1.4.2008, whereas Shri Ramchandra Singh Jhala (placed below him in order of merit in the order dated 3.5.2001) was sanctioned the same with effect from 1.11.2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner on 31.1.2011 submitted a representation, reiterating his claim for the Selection Grade from the year 2006, ventilating his remonstrance in particular that Shri Ramchandra Singh Jhala had been accorded the benefit prior to him, though he was below in order of merit. The representations dated 21.8.2008 and 31.1.2011 were rejected and the petitioner was intimated of the said decision by communications dated 7.2.2011 and 24.11.2011 respectively. The petitioner is, thus, before this court for redress.