PURSHOTTAM LAL Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforementioned 35 writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, have come before us on a reference made by learned Single Judge of this court vide his common order, dated 2. 9. 1993 for deciding the identical question of law raised in the above writ petitions, in the matter concerning the interpretation of Ministerial Staff service Regulations, 1962 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "r. S. E. B" ). Since the above writ petitions are all connected matters involving the identical questions of law, they are being disposed of by this single common order which shall be operative in all the matters.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, it shall be appropriate to refer the facts of civil writ petition No. 6916/92, Purshottamlal vs. R. S. E. B. The petitioner, Purshottamlal joined service of The R. S. E. B. on 10. 11. 1978 as Peon (Class IV ). He was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (FOR short LDC) by order, dated 26. 03. 1984, in which his name has been shown at serial No. 19. After completion of 10 years of service including service as class IV servant, the petitioner was given benefit of additional increments. According to the petitioner on the basis of the Arbitration Award given by Shri Mohan Mukherji and Shri Gopeshwar pay scales of the employees belonging to different cadres of the service of R. S. E. B. , were revised. Pay scale of the post of L. D. C. was Rs. 370-570, which was subsequently revised to 530- 740. At the time of appointment as LDC the petitioner was drawing Rs. 801. 46 as Helper and his revised pay was fixed at Rs. 786. 30. Respondents did not follow proper principle of fixation of pay of the petitioner and this resulted in virtual reduction of the pay of the petitioner. The petitioner served a notice for demand of justice and when he did not get a reply he filed writ petition.

(3.) ON the other hand it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid order is not applicable to them as their appointments were made earlier in point of time, then the petitioners in the said cases. In writ petition No. 6916/92 the petitioner initially appointed as a Helper was promoted as LDC in the quota of 15% of class IV employees which was reserved for their promotions to LDCs. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that notwithstanding the past service rendered by the petitioner as Peon till he was promoted to the post of LDC. w. e. f. 26. 03. 1984, the benefit of past service was not given to him and he was treated as a fresh appointee alongwith other candidates who were directly appointed as LDCs. This discrimination has resulted in great disadvantage to the petitioner as his past service was not considered for the purpose of selection as LDC.