SHAMBHU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are untrained Gram Sevaks, have filed this petition and prayed that the impugned order dated 28.1.1986. 28.2.1986 and 21.7.1987 be set aside and prayed that the respondents be directed to grant arrears to the petitioners on account of fixation in new pay -scale. They also prayed that they should be paid salary equal to the trained Gram Sevak. However, at the time of hearing, the challenge was restricted only to the grant of arrears from the date of their appointment till the date of order (Annex. 3) dated 26.1.1986.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Singhvi for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court (V.S. Kokje and B.S. Chouhan, JJ.) delivered on January 6. 1988 in case of Chandra Shekhar v. State of Rajasthan) in DB Special Appeal (Writs) No. 377 of 1996 and allied matters. Mr. Singhvi has also relied upon the Articles 29 and 31 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules') and submitted that the petitioners were entitled for the arrears from the date of their appointment i.e., 3.7.1980 till the order at Annex. 3 dated 21.8.1986 was passed. He frankly stated that the petitioners have been paid the salary as per the order dated 21.8.1986, thereafter. Thus, the challenge is restricted to the arrears from the date of appointment i.e., 3.7.1980 till the date of order at Annex. 3 dated 28.1.1986.

(3.) AS stated earlier, the Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Shekhar's case (supra) and others was decided on the facts of that case wherein the petitioners were Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.). From the judgment it appears that their appointments were initially for a fixed period but in a particular pay -scale, which entitles them to one increment provided they continued in service. They were continued in service from 1986 to 1993 as temporary employees in the pay -scale given at the time of appointment. The pay -scale itself indicated that they would earn increment periodically. In view of the peculiar facts of those cases, the Division Bench of this Court held that, 'Thus, on the basis of contract of employment itself, the appellants were entitled to grant of increments during the period they were serving in temporary capacity before the regularisation of their services. Therefore, even de hors the rules, they were entitled to grant of increments on the basis of contract of service.'