The court emphasized the importance of complying with arbitral awards and government orders in determining the entitlement to promotion and higher pay scale for employees.

Rajesh Balia, J.-I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties may be noticed in order to understand the claim to reliefs made by the petitioner Jugal Kishore.

3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Meter Reader Gr. I vide order dated 212.1971 and he was not promoted for a considerable period. The matter was referred to an Arbitral Tribunal who made the award on 15.06.1979 which was duly published and according to Para No. 49 of the said award, a person who was holding the post in pay scales No. 1 to 6 and had remained stagnated for 11 years as on 1st April of each following year, he was entitled for the selection grade in the next higher pay scale. The first relief , therefore, is that the petitioner on completion of 11 years from his first appointment in December, 1971 ought to have been placed in the next higher pay scale w.e.f. December, 1982.

4. In this connection, he has also prayed that while persons appointed prior to 312.1970 and holding the post of Meter Reader for 8 years, they were promoted to Meter Inspectors Gr. I. On that premise, the petitioner said that cut off date of 30.12.1970 for extending the period of first promotion to the Meter Feeder on completion of 8 years satisfactory service was without any rational nexus with object sought to be achieved by such classification and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been promoted from the date of first appointment as Meter Inspector Gr. I and ought to have been treated Meter Inspector Gr. I. The relevant part of petitioners claim was about stagnancy suffered by him on account of inaction on the part of the respondents.

5. The petition was filed on 21.05.1991 and admitted on 11.07.1991. The return was submitted on behalf of the respondents RSEB on 14.09.1999. No reply was given to the claim made to put in the next higher pay scale on account of selection scale on completion of 11 years service in terms of Para 49 of the Sancheti Award dated 15.06.1979 which had duly been published. In reply to the contention raised by the petitioner about Para 49 of the Award dated 15.06.1979 providing to convert the 20% of the posts of each category/ trade/ class of Technical workman in each of the pay scales 1 to 6 in selection grade posts for such of the regular employees fixed in regular pay scale against regular sanctioned post (not supernumerary), it was stated that the petitioner was appointed as Meter Reader-II in Nagaur Division where there was no sanctioned post of Meter Reader. Thus, post cannot be converted into selection grade post and, therefore, claim of the petitioner is without any basis and not maintainable. Incidentally, the respondents also alleged that the petitioner has given a wrong fact about his appointment as Meter Reader Gr. I. The date of appointment of the petitioner in December, 1971 was not disputed.

6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government order dated 25.01.1992 came into force for removing the stagnancy by granting selection pay scale at the interval of 9, 18, and 27 years of continuous service which envisaged that when no promotion has been granted during each spell of period, the incumbent may be given 1, 2, and 3 selection scale on completion of said period. The resolution of the Board adopted the aforesaid Government Order on 06.03.1992. The petitioner having completed 20 years service in March, 1992, he was allowed the second selection scale by order dated 06.03.1992 and, thereafter, he has been promoted to the post of Meter Inspector Gr. II vide order dated 112.1997. By grant of the second selection scale vide order dated 06.03.1992, the petitioner was put in the pay scale of 1400-40-1800-50-2300/-by treating him to be Meter Reader Gr. II.

7. The petitioner submitted a rejoinder clarifying that in 1968 there was only one grade and there were no two grades of Meter Inspectors. The petitioner had been appointed vide letter dated 112.197