SOMDUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2/2/2016 (Annex.11) passed by the Financial Adviser, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur and a direction has been sought to the respondents to revise the pay/pension of the petitioner as per the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989, 1998 and 2008.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as Sub-Inspector with the respondent Department when Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 ('the Rules, 1989') were introduced. Thereafter, on 20/11/1993 a memorandum was issued providing for permission to the employees to exercise option or re-option under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1989 within two months from the date of publication of the order. It is claimed that the petitioner gave his option, however, the revision was not permitted in terms of Rules, 1989. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31/8/1995. On 22/2/1997, the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar for redressing the grievance of the petitioner indicating that the petitioner had submitted his option on 24/12/1993 for revising his pay in the Pay Scale of 1400-2600.

(3.) Thereafter, despite petitioner's repeated following-up with the Department, on 22/7/2015 Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh ordered for revision of the pay/pension of the petitioner according to the option submitted by him pursuant to Rules of 1989, however, the Financial Adviser from whom the guidance was sought, by its communication dated 2/2/2016 opined that as per Rule 10(5) of the Rules, 1989 option once given was final and as the revision has taken place under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998 and 2008 and prayer for option has been made after retirement, there was no justification for sending the option to the State Government.