MOOLGIRI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned Counsel f. the peti. ner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition does not merit admission.

(2.) The petitioner, while working on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, was fixed in the maximum of revised pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000 at Rs. 6,000/- with Rs. 209/- PP, as on 11.06.1997 by an order issued from the Office of Superintendent of Police, Pali on 15.02.1999 (Annex.1) under and in pursuance of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998. However, the said order dated 15.02.1999 was withdrawn for the objection raised by the Treasury Officer, Pali and the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 6,000/- + Rs. 60/- PP by an order issued on 16.07.1999 (Annex.2). The petitioner questioned the order dated 16.07.1999 in Appeal No. 349/1999 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur. The Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal on 27.03.2000 (Annex.3) with the observations that the petitioner was not extended any opportunity before withdrawal of the benefits of pay fixation already extended to him and, therefore, the respondents shall extend him an opportunity of hearing and shall pass speaking order; and left it open for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal again, if aggrieved. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and he replied to the effect that once the order passed earlier has been set aside by the Tribunal, his pay could not be reduced on the basis of the said order; that once his pay was fixed at Rs. 6,000/-+ Rs. 209/- PP from 11.06.1997, the Treasury Officer has wrongly put his objection and once he had been extended the benefits, the same could not be withdrawn; and referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp1 SCC 18 and Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India, 1994 1 LLJ 815 SC .

(3.) From the material placed on record, it appears that the Additional Superintendent of Police dealing with the matter asked for the opinion from the Assistant Accounts Officer, Internal Audit who in turn stated under the letter dated 25.05.2000 (Annex.7) that the pay in relation to the petitioner was required to be fixed only at Rs. 6000/- + 60/- PP; and the petitioner was accordingly informed by the letter dated 26.05.2000 (Annex.6) that he was entitled for 6000/- + 60/- PP in the pay scale of 4,000-100-6,000 and was not entitled for any other relief. A copy of the opinion received from the Assistant Accounts Officer (Annex.7) was also endorsed to the petitioner. The petitioner questioned the order dated 26.05.2000 before the Tribunal in Appeal No. 424/2000. It appears that after filing of the appeal and before its decision, the petitioner retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.01.2001.