KISHAN LAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 227 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 3. 6. 2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the letter dated 16. 4. 2003 (Annex. 5) issued by the respondent No. 4 Executive Engineer, 11th Div. IGNP, Jaisalmer by which the petitioner was informed that selection grades would be given to him after counting his services from the date of selection or passing efficiency/performance test and not from the date of initial appointment and he was asked to submit the copy of selection order and the order dated 28. 1. 2004 (Annex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 5 Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Services Tribunal") by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to give selection grade to the petitioner after counting his services from the date of initial appointment.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- THE petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Ferrowman vide order dated 31. 8. 1979 (Annex. 1) in the pay scale of Rs. 250-4-270-6-300-8-340-10-360 and thereafter, he was made permanent on that post and he was given the pay scale of Rs. 370- 5-400-10-530 vide order dated 22. 6. 1985 (Annex. 2 ). 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 the service of nine, eighteen and twenty seven years, as the case may be shall be counted from the date of first appointment. THE further case of the petitioner is that since he was initially appointed on 31. 8. 1979, therefore, on completion of 9 and 18 years of service, he was entitled to get the benefit of first and second selection grade with effect from 31. 8. 1988 and 31. 8. 1997 respectively, but the same were not given to him and he was denied on the ground that these benefits would be given to him after counting his services from the date of passing efficiency test and not from the date of initial appointment. THE further case of the petitioner is that Hansiram, who was appointed alongwith him vide order Annex. 1 dated 31. 8. 1979, approached the competent court for grant of selection grade after taking into consideration the services from the date of initial appointment and ultimately, vide order Annex. 3 dated 26. 6. 2002, he was given the benefit of selection grade after considering his services from the date of initial appointment. THE further case of the petitioner is that he made representation before the respondents for grant of selection grades after taking into consideration his services from the date of initial appointment i. e. 31. 8. 1979, but of no avail. THE further case of the petitioner is that through letter dated 16. 4. 2003 (Annex. 5), the respondent No. 4 Executive Engineer, 11th Div. IGNP, Jaisalmer informed the petitioner that selection grade would be given to him after counting his services from the date of selection and not from the date of initial appointment and he was asked to submit the copy of selection order. According to the petitioner, thereafter, he filed a writ petition before this Court, but the same was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Services Tribunal. THEreafter, he preferred appeal before the Services Tribunal, but the same was dismissed by the Services Tribunal through order Annex. 6 dated 28. 1. 2004 being not maintainable in absence of producing impugned order. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. THE main case of the petitioner is 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, for the purpose of granting selection grade, his services should have been counted from the date of initial appointment i. e. 31. 8. 1979 and not from the date of passing efficiency/performance test. He has further submitted that there are catena of judgments of this Court that for the purposes of granting selection grades, services would be counted from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of passing efficiency test. In this respect, he has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Ram Kishan & Anr. (RLR 2002 (2) 711) = (RLW 2003 (2) Raj. 726) and Achalchand Sen vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3278/2003 decided on 6. 1. 2005 ). Hence, the impugned letter Annex. 5 informing the petitioner that for the purpose of granting selection grades, his services would be counted from the date of selection and not from the date of initial appointment cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to selection grades after counting services from the date of his initial appointment i. e. 31. 8. 1979. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it was submitted by them that as per amended 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 the petitioner was informed that for the purpose of granting selection grade, his services would be counted from the date of passing performance test and not from the initial appointment, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the respondents. Hence, no interference is called for and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) THE question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just narrated above, the action of the respondents informing the petitioner that he would be given selection grades after counting his services from the date of selection or passing efficiency/performance test can be sustained or not or in other words, whether the petitioner is entitled to selection grades after counting his services from the date of initial appointment or not.