BABU LAL SEERVI Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who at the time of instituting the writ petition were working as Personal Assistants in the High Court services, seek judicial intervention for grant of first selection grade/first Assured Career Progression (also referred to as ACP) to them on completion of 9 years' of service by granting them grade pay of Rs.4200/ - in the pay scale of Rs.9300 -34800 with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears by adjudging that the merger of the post of Junior Personal Assistant with that of Personal Assistant does not amount to upgradation and/or promotion within the meaning of circular No.F.20(1) FD (Gr.2)/92 dated 25.1.1992 of the Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Gr.2) Department, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (for short, hereafter referred to as '2008 Rules') as well as the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and the note dated 4.3.2009, pertaining thereto.

(2.) WE have heard Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Manoj Bhandari, Mr.Hemant Dutt & Mr.Amit Tatia, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Dr.P.S.Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr.Pradhuman Singh for the respondent No.2.

(3.) WHILE the matter rested at that, before the petitioners could complete 9 years of service by 1.9.2006, the 2008 Rules were framed and brought into force with effect from that date. The 2008 Rules as well were made applicable to the employees of the High Court, including the petitioners. The running pay bands and the grade pay, as accorded, and other particulars were set out in "Sections B, C & D" of Schedule I thereto. The petitioners have averred that under Section B, the posts of the staff/officials of the High Court were specified and the pay of the Personal Assistant was fixed in the running pay band of Rs.9300 -34800 with grade pay of Rs.3600. The pay band for the post of Senior Personal Assistant was fixed at Rs.9300 -34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200. In Section C, it was inter alia recorded that the post of Stenographer(Junior Personal Assistant) was merged with the post of Personal Assistant. The petitioners have mentioned that as would be apparent from the relevant entries in Sections B & C of Schedule I to the 2008 Rules, for the post of Stenographer and Personal Assistant, the existing pay scale had been shown to be Rs.5500 -175 -9000 with running pay band at Rs.9300 -34800 with grade pay Rs.3600. Notwithstanding this, the finance department of the State drew up a note dated 4.3.2009 to the effect that consequent upon the merger of the post of Stenographer with that of Personal Assistant, the pay of the incumbents, in the former, should be fixed after giving the benefit of Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, hereafter referred to as '1951 Rules'), as if, the incidence of merger was one of promotion from the post of Junior Personal Assistant to that of Personal Assistant. The petitioners have alleged that this was contemplated to deprive them the benefit of first selection grade/first ACP admissible to them on completion of 9 years of service after 1.9.2006. Following this, orders dated 29.9.2011 and 1.11.2011 were issued by the High Court effecting upgradation of the post of Stenographer (Junior Personal Assistant) to that of Personal Assistant and upgrading 37 Junior Personal Assistants, as referred to therein, who were in the pay scale of Rs.5500 -9000 prior to 1.9.2006 to the post of Personal Assistant (pay scale 5500 -175 -9000) with effect from that date. Vide order dated 24.11.2011 issued by the Registrar (Admn.) of the High Court, the pay of the petitioners was fixed in the revised pay scale by granting benefit of Rule 26A of 1951 Rules i.e.one advance increment grantable on promotion. The petitioners, being aggrieved, submitted successive representations contending primarily that the merger of the post of Junior Personal Assistant with that of Personal Assistant did, by no means, signify upgradation of the post of Junior Personal Assistant or the promotion of the incumbent thereof to a higher post, and that, though they were entitled to the benefit of first selection grade/first ACP on completion of 9 years of service, they were pushed to suffer perpetual loss by fixing their pay under Rule 26A of the 1951 Rules. As the representations did not yield the reliefs sought for by them, they have turned to this Court.