RIKHAB RAJ KUMBHAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the decision of the State Government contained in letter No. F. 17 (27)FD (Gr. 2)/83 in the light of which the Rajasthan High Court by order dated 28. 6. 1986 recalled its earlier order dated 7. 3. 1984 stepping up of the date of increment and the consequential fixation of pay of the petitioner. Besides the order dated 28. 6. 1986 the petitioner has also challenged orders dated 22. 9. 87, 21. 3. 88, 2. 6. 89, 10. 1. 90, 31. 8. 90 and 20. 11. 90. By the said orders, the State Government clarified its stand and declined to modify the basic order and the High Court also declined to interfere.

(2.) SHORN of details, facts of the case relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that while working on the post of Civil Accountant in the Rajasthan High Court in the scale of Rs. 500- 940 and drawing the pay of Rs. 940/- the petitioner was promoted on the post of Superintendent cum Chief Accountant in the scale of Rs. 620-1100 on 2. 1. 1980. On promotion, his pay was fixed at Rs. 985/- in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 with next increment due on 10. 11. 1980. One Ram Singh Bhatnagar (in short Bhatnagar) who was Bench Reader in the scale of Rs. 500-890 and getting pay of Rs. 940/- (including personal pay of Rs. 50), was also promoted as Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 620-1100 with effect from 22. 5. 1980 and on such promotion, his pay too was fixed at 985/-, his next date of increment being 1. 10. 1980.

(3.) IT may be stated here that though the order dated 7. 3. 1984 was passed under sub-rule (2) of rule 14 of the Revised Pay Rules, counsel for the parties agreed that sub-rule (2) can be applied only in cases of anomaly arising from pay fixation as a result of pay revision under the Revised Pay Rules; the anomaly which was sought to be removed by order dated 7. 3. 1984 is contemplated in sub-rule (1) of rule 14. But whereas according to counsel for the petitioner, sub-rule (1) of rule 14 covers the case of the petitioner, according to counsel for the respondents, the conditions laid down in the rule are not satisfied and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the stepping up of his pay/increment in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 14.