MOHAMMED AQUIL KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 23.1.2002 by which date of granting him selection scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service respectively has been changed. Petitioner was initially appointed in the service of Government of India on the post of Instructor on 25.3.1969. Petitioner was serving in Technical Training Center, Kota. Government of Rajasthan decided to absorb employees of Technical Training Center, Kota of Government of India in its service because the same was taken over by the State Government. Twenty one employees of the Technical Training Center, Kota were decided to be absorbed in the services of the State Government against the posts created in the scheme of Land Reclamation and Operational Training in Heavy Machines w.e.f. 17.2.1973. One of those 21 did not opt to be absorbed and in all 20 employees were absorbed. Petitioner was originally granted benefit of first, second and third selection scale on completion of 9.18 and 27 years of service respectively counting such period from the date of his initial appointment with Government of India on 25.3.1969 and benefit of selection scale was also granted in the same manner to other similarly situated employees. Petitioner applied for and was permitted to proceed on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.2000. Subsequently, respondents suddenly by order dated 23.1.2002 revised the benefit of selection scale so granted counting his qualifying period of service only w.e.f. 17.2.1973, the date on which he was absorbed in the services of State Government as per the aforesaid arrangement. It is this order which is impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(2.) MS . Ashish Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that benefit of selection scale was granted to twenty employees including the petitioner from the date of their initial appointment. Only the petitioner was singled out for being accorded a different treatment and in his case alone, date of his absorption i.e. 17.3.1973 has been taken as basis of counting the period for grant of such selection scale whereas benefit granted to other 19 employees has been kept intact. Learned Counsel submitted that no notice prior to passing of the aforesaid order withdrawing the benefit of selection scale was served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the decision to take over the Technical Training Center, Kota was that of the State Government and that decision was in public interest and, therefore, the services of the petitioner was also transferred to State Government because control of Technical Training Center, Kota itself was taken over by the State Government. In view of the fourth proviso to Clause III of the Circular of Finance Department dated 17.2.1998, which Has superseded the earlier circular on the same subject dated 25.1. 1992, petitioner would be entitled to count entire period of service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.3.1969.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material forming part of the record, 1 find that specific plea set up by the petitioner in para No. 3(f) and 4 (ii) of the writ petition that while in the case of other 19 employees, they continued to draw the benefit of selection scale from the date of their initial appointment with the Government of India, it Is only the petitioner who has been singled out for the purpose of counting such benefit from the date of his appointment with State Government, has not at all been denied by the respondents. In reply to para No. 3(0, it is contended by the respondents as under: The contents of para No. 3(F) are admitted facts and are related to previous litigation. In response to a similar plea In para No. 4(11) of the reply to the writ petition, it is contended by the respondents that: The contents of this para are not admitted and hat the order dated 23.2.2002 is just and legal and deserves to be upheld by the Hon'ble Court. There is thus no specific denial to the arguments of the discrimination so pointedly raised by the petitioner. In any case, Finance Department of the State Government has clarified this situation for resolving such like controversy by inserting fourth proviso to Clause III in the circular dated 17.2.1998, which has superseded earlier circular dated 25.1.1992 on the same subject matter. It provides that in case of an employee, who has been transferred from one department to another department or from one Appointing Authority to another Appointing Authority within the same Department or while serving in one department of State Government is recruited directly in other department on the same post, service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be, shall be counted for the purpose of grant of Selection Scale from the date of his initial regular appointment on the same post in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. The. term same post for the purpose shall mean post carrying the same designation and pay scale. It is further provided that as a result of counting of service rendered in previous department/under previous appointing authority for grant of Selection Grade, if the pay of a junior Government servant becomes more than the pay of his senior, no stepping up of pay of senior Government servant shall be permissible. Even otherwise, when it is evidently cleat from the fact that petitioner did not come to services of the respondents on his own request and that Technical Training Center, Kota. In which he was serving, was itself taken over by the State Government, there is no, Justification in not treating the initial date of his appointment with that Center as the basis for grant of selection scale if he has otherwise not received any promotion within that time period. This is so because the object of the grant of selection scale is to remove stagnation. If the Government is not able to provide promotion to the employees in subordinate service within a span of every nine years,, then such selection scales are conferred upon the Government servant at every interval of nine year. In view of the discussions made above, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 23.1.2002 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits with interest @ 6% per annum. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.