RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) INITIALLY, Special Civil Application No. 9538 of 2001 was filed for as many as thirty one petitioners together, alleging that the petitioners are entitled to First Higher Pay Scale Grade of P. S. I. in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 (Revised ).

( 2 ) THE petitioners are First Grade Head Constable (ASI) under respondent no. 3 - Commandant, State Reserve Police ("srp"), Group-XII. The case of the petitioners is that they have been serving since they joined in SRP as `armed Constables between 1956 to 1969. It is also their case that they then received promotion in Second Grade Head Constable and thereafter, in First Grade Head Constable, which is also known as `asi. With a view to see that the details of every individual petitioner are on record, by Order dated 7th January, 2002, the petitioners were asked to file separate petitions for individual petitioner. Accordingly, Special Civil Application Nos. 214 of 243 of 2002 are filed. In all these petitions, `rule was issued on 21st February, 2002, returnable on 6th March, 2002,

( 3 ) THE question involved in all these petitions is common. Except the details like date of joining, date of promotion to the post of Second Grade Head Constable and First Grade Head Constable, date of birth and their completing 45 years of age, there is no other material factor on which these petitions differ from each other.

( 4 ) MR. V. M. DHOTRE, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that by virtue of Government Resolution No. PGR-1194-44-M dated 16th August, 1994, the Government promulgated a scheme whereby the Government employees, who were having no promotional avenues or limited promotional avenues, were to be granted higher pay scale.

( 5 ) THE case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are entitled to the said benefit of higher pay scale under the aforesaid Resolution, but, the same is denied to the petitioners without there being any justifiable reason. The learned Advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the relevant part of the said Government Resolution, particularly, Clause 3 (5), which provides that the authority, which is competent to appoint a person on the post, having higher pay scale, will be competent to grant benefit of higher pay scale, and while doing so, the overall performance, qualifications, passing of prescribed examination, whereever so prescribed, and eligibility to get promotion will be considered. It is further provided in the said clause that in case of an employee, who has become eligible for higher pay scale prior to 5th July, 1991, `past nine years confidential reports, and in case of one, who became eligible for higher pay scale after 5th July, 1991, `past five years confidential reports, will be taken into consideration. In this very clause, it is further provided that the persons, who have completed 45 years of age on or before 5th July, 1991, will be treated to be eligible for exemption from passing of the departmental examination. But then, it is also provided that the employees, who have completed 45 years of age after 5th July, 1991, will not be considered eligible for exemption from passing of the departmental examination.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that it is on the ground of `non-passing of the departmental examination that the authorities have held that the petitioners are disqualified for grant of benefit of higher pay-scale grade. The learned Advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. In paragraph-9, it is stated that,"at this juncture, it may be pertinent to refer to the provisions of clause 3 (5) of the Government Resolution dated 16. 8. 1994 which has been annexed as Annexure-B to the petition. Under the said clause, the authority who is authorised to make appointments to the post of the higher pay scale is competent to sanction the higher pay scale in the case of eli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document