PANNA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, dated 2.5.92,(Annex.14), and for direction to fix the petitioner's pay in accordance with the option dated 9.8.85, as per the notification dated 12.6.85 (Annex.2), a direction has also been claimed for payment of arrears alongwith interest. Then in clause-(d) a prayer has been made to declare illegal and strike down the words but prior to the date of option for revised pay scale in the notification, Annex.2, and consequently, has claimed a declaration, that all those government servants, who have been appointed by direct recruitment subsequent to 1.9.81, were entitled to get option under order dated 12.6.85.

(2.) The facts of the case are, that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Gr.III on 29.12.73. While so working he appeared for selection to the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant (TRA), and vide order dated 22.8.83 he was appointed as such, on which post he joined on 7.4.83. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1983, hereafter referred to be as the Pay Scale Rules of 1983 were promulgated by the notifications dated 17.2.83, and were brought into effect from 1.9.81. In terms of these Rules, the petitioner submitted his option on 2.4.83, for fixation of his pay scale. It is alleged that in exercise of powers conferred in Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, an amendment was made in Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR), which was published in Gazette on 12.6.85, which has been produced as Annex.2, according to which, if a person gets appointment to another post by direct recruitment after 1.9.81 but prior to the date of option for revised pay scale, may opt for fixation of pay under Rule 26 of the RSR, either for fixation of pay of the new post, or for fixation of pay for the lower post, and in the event of exercise of second option, was entitled to continue to draw the pay at the rate of pay of the lower post, until the date of option. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted another option on 9.8.85. Thereupon an objection was taken about the option having not been submitted in time, but then, vide Annex.5 dated 5.8.86, the Board of Revenue accepted the option dated 9.8.85. However the pay fixation was not made in accordance with Annex.5, and the correspondence went on being exchanged between the Board of Revenue and other authorities, inasmuch as, the other authorities raised an objection, to the effect, that since in the earlier option the petitioner had opted new pay scale to be made applicable w.e.f. 1.9.81 to him, in terms of the order, Annex.2, he was not entitled to submit a fresh option, and ultimately the Board of Revenue passed the order Annex.14 dated 2.5.92, holding that on reexamination of the matter, it was found, that the petitioner is not entitled to submit the fresh option, and therefore, the matter was closed. It is this Annex.14, which is precisely sought to be quashed, being 2.5.92, and prayer has been made for acceptance of the option dated 9.8.85. Since the petitioner feels, that the words used but prior to the date of option for revised pay scale are discriminatory and unreasonable, this expression is also sought to be stuck down.

(3.) A reply has been filed, contending, that the petitioner, with eyes open, had submitted the option on 2.4.83, opting the date 1.9.81, and since there is no provision for giving second option, the case of the petitioner is to be governed by the first option. Regarding the notification, Annex.2, it was pleaded, that of course, in terms of that notification, if a person gets appointment to another post by direct recruitment after 1.9.81, but prior to the date of option, may opt for fixation from the dates mentioned therein, but then, since the petitioner had opted for the revised pay scales since 1.9.981, in the first option, and that option was submitted after getting selected on the new post, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to exercise the second option. In para-16 of the reply, a specific stand has been taken, to the effect, that the petitioner's case does not fall in the category of the employees entitled to submit second option, under the amendment, introduced vide Annex.2, as the petitioner had opted the revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.9.81, as the notification, Annex.2 clearly provides, that those government servants who had opted revised pay scales of 1983, from a date subsequent to 1.9.81, on appointment to another post through direct recruitment, during the period commencing after 1.9.81, but prior to the date of option, may submit the option in accordance therewith. It is maintained, that the petitioner had the choice to opt the date 1.9.81, or not to opt it, but ones the petitioner has opted it, with eyes open, unless his case squarely falls within the four-corners of the amendment, Annex.2, he could not exercise option over again. Various other pleadings have also been taken in the reply, which need not detain me.