MANOHAR KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the writ petitions involve identical questions for consideration of this Court and the grounds raised therein are also common in respect of reoption to revision of pay to the petitioners serving in the Registry of this High Court, they were heard together at the request of both the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts relevant for disposal of these two petitions, briefly stated, are- Civil Writ Petition No. 2699/93 Bhanwara Ram State of Rajasthan & Others.

(2.) BHANWARARAM petitioner was initially appointed as L. D. C. by the District Education Officer, Pali on 27. 6. 1975. Thereafter upon his regular selection, he was appointed as L. D. C. by the Registrar of this High Court on 4. 3. 77 and he joined as such as 1. 4. 1977. Subsequently, he was confirmed as LDC vide order dt. 25. 8. 78 (Ann. 1) and promoted as U. D. C. on 23. 7. 85. Thereafter, upon having been declared to have qualified in the promotional test for the post of Stamp Reporter/court Fee Examiner vide order dt. 4. 12. 85 (Ann. 3), he was promoted as such vide order dt. 7. 7. 92 (Ann. 4 ). He joined as Stamp Reporter on 30. 7. 92 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600.

(3.) THE petitioner presented his representation dt. 5. 6. 92 (Ann. 2) to the Registrar of this Court (respondent No. 3), stating therein that he may be allowed to re-opt to change his option from date 1. 9. 88 to 1. 9. 91 and to continue to draw pay in the pay scale existing before the Revised Pay Rules 1989 came into effect and then accordingly be permitted to opt for refixation for drawing pay in the pay scale of the Revised Pay Rules of 1989 applicable to the post of UDC w. e. f. 1. 9. 1991 at Rs. 1550/-and then again refixed at pay of Rs. 1650/-as admissible to the post of Translator in the Revised Pay Scale of Rules, 1989, w. e. f. 1. 9. 1991. He again presented his detailed representation dt. 15. 4. 93 (Ann. 9) which was sent to the respondent State Government authority by letter dt. 8. 7. 93. THE respondent No. 3 recommended the matter of the petitioner's representations to the State Government by letter dt. 3. 1. 95. Again on 12. 2. 96 the petitioner presented a detailed representation (Ann. 12) followed by another letter dt. 21. 5. 96 (Ann. 4), which was referred by the respondent No. 3 to the State Govt. vide letter dt. 28. 6. 96 (Ann. 16 ). By letter dt. 27. 8. 96 (Ann. 17), the Dy. Secretary Law Department communicated rejection of his representation for revision of his previous option.