ACHALCHAND SEN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent on 15. 7. 2003 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order of direction, the order dated 19. 3. 2003 (Annex. 7) passed by the respondent No. 2 Dy. Director (Male), Secondary Education, Jodhpur by which the earlier order Annex. 6 dated 13. 5. 1997 granting selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 18 years service was revised in the manner that selection grade was granted to the petitioner from 19. 11. 1999 instead of 27. 2. 1997 and order dated 28. 3. 2003 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 4. Headmaster, Government Senior Secondary School, Dayalpura, Jalore by which recovery of sum of Rs. 21,418/- was ordered to be made from the gratuity of the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- THE petitioner was appointed as LDC vide order Annex. 1 dated 23. 2. 1979 and in pursuance of the said order Annex. 1, he joined his duties on 27. 2. 1979 through Annex. 2. THE further case of the petitioner is that he was granted annual grade increments on passing of type test vide order Annex. 3 dated 13. 4. 1981. THE further case of the petitioner is that he also passed performance test in the year 1981 and the copy of the mark sheet is Annex. 4. THE further case of the petitioner is that after passing the performance test, he was confirmed on the post of LDC with effect from 19. 11. 1981 through order Annex. 5 dated 17. 3. 1982. THE further case of the petitioner is that the State Government issued Notification on 25. 1. 1992 for grant of selection grade to its employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service and in pursuance of the said Notification dated 25. 1. 1992, he alongwith other persons was granted selection grade on completion of 18 years satisfactory service with effect from 27. 2. 1997 through order Annex. 6 dated 13. 5. 1997. According to the petitioner, his services for the purpose of grant of selection grade were counted from the date of his initial appointment i. e. 27. 2. 1979 and not from the date of passing of the performance test on 19. 11. 1981. THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the Notification dated 25. 1. 1992 was amended by the State Government through order dated 17. 2. 1998 and in pursuance of the said order dated 17. 2. 1998, through order Annex. 7 dated 19. 3. 2003, the earlier order Annex. 6 dated 13. 5. 1997 granting selection grade to the petitioner on completion of 18 years service was revised in the manner that selection grade was granted to the petitioner from 19. 11. 1999 instead of 27. 2. 1997. According to the petitioner, the order Annex. 7 dated 19. 3. 2003 was passed after calculating the services of the petitioner from the date of passing performance test and not from the date of initial appointment. THEreafter, in pursuance of the order Annex. 7 dated 19. 3. 2003, the respondent No. 4 Headmaster, Government Senior Secondary School, Dayalpura, Jalore vide order Annex. 8 dated 28. 3. 2003 ordered for deduction of sum of Rs. 21,418/- from the gratuity of the petitioner. In this petition, both the aforesaid orders Annex. 7 dated 19. 3. 2003 and Annex. 8 dated 28. 3. 2003 have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows:- (i) That before passing the impugned orders Annex. 7 and Annex. 8, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and thus, they are wholly illegal being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and on that ground alone, both the impugned orders Annex. 7 and Annex. 8 are liable to be quashed and set aside. (ii) That when the selection grade was granted to the petitioner on completion of 18 years' service w. e. f. 27. 2. 1997 through order Annex. 6 dated 13. 5. 1997, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and thus, if that order Annex. 6 was revised later on by the respondents without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it would be highly arbitrary and unreasonable exercise on the part of the respondents. (iii) That as per terms of the Notification dated 25. 1. 1992, service of 9, 18 and 27, as the case may be, should be counted from the date of initial appointment and therefore, the petitioner was rightly granted selection grade through order Annex. 6 after counting his services from the date of initial appointment and subsequent revision of that order Annex. 6 through order Annex. 7 in pursuance of amended order dated 17. 2. 1998 cannot be sustained as subsequent amendment made vide order dt. 17. 2. 1998 cannot deprive the petitioner to enjoy the benefit of selection grade already granted to him in pursuance of order dated 25. 1. 1992. In this respect, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan and ors. vs. Ram Kishan & Anr. (RLR 2002 (2) 711) = (RLW 2003 (2) Raj. 726 ). A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it was submitted by them that as per amendment order dated 17. 2. 1998 issued by the State Government, for granting selection grade, the service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, should be counted from the date of passing of performance test and therefore, if earlier order Annex. 6 was revised in pursuance of the order dated 17. 2. 1998, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the respondents. It has been further submitted by the respondents that while passing the impugned order Annex. 7 and Annex. 8, there was no need to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, principles of natural justice were not violated by the respondents. Hence, no interference is called for and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that in pursuance of the said Notification dated 25. 1. 1992, the petitioner alongwith other persons was granted selection grade on completion of 18 years satisfactory service with effect from 27. 2. 1997 through order Annex. 6 dated 13. 5. 1997 and while granting selection grade to the petitioner through order Annex. 6, the services of the petitioner were counted from the date of his initial appointment i. e. 27. 2. 1979.