2006 Supreme(Raj) 3086
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.
Mahesh Behari Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State of Raj. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4072 of 1993.
Decided On : 31-08-2006
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sandeep Saxena, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Pathak on behalf of Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG.
Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 14 and 16 – Raj. Service Rules, 1951, R.26 A – The petitioner challenged the validity of the amendment – he pleaded that because of the retrospective effect of the amendment, the petitioner is suffering loss of Rs 400 per month – the court observed that administrative actions cannot prevail over the rules – hence, in the present case, the court allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to re – fix pay of the petitioner as per the main rule for the given post and also to grant arrears of re – fixation and pension benefits within the period of three months.
JUDGMENT
1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by 17 Accounts Officers, all of them have retired from service, challenging applicability of the amendment dated 18.8.1992 with retrospective effect i.e. from 25.1.1992 as well as Para 13 of the general selection scale order dated 25.1.1992. The petitioners have further prayed that respondents be directed to make proper fixation on the post held by them at the relevant time i.e. the post of Accounts Officer, as per main rule 26 A RSR and for further consequential benefits.
2. The facts, in brief, of the case are that all the petitioners entered in the service on being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the post of Accountant between 1965 to 1969 and subsequently, all of them had been promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer in the year 1981 and 1982 and thereafter, from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer promoted to that of Accounts Officer in July, 1992 on the recommendations of the DPC against the vacancies of the year 1992-93 vide order dated 2.7.1992. While the petitioners were working on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, which is a subordinate service post, all of the them had been granted selection scale of Rs. 2000-3500 vide order dated 28.2.1992 (Annexure-4) on completion of 18 years' service as per notification dated 25.1.1992, they have no grievance regarding their fixation in the said selection scale. Their grievance is that pay of some of them fixed on the promoted post of Accounts Officer (State service post) in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 after giving the benefit of Rule 26-A which was withdrawn and recoveries were made in view of notification dated 18.8.1992 (Annexure-5) whereby Note-4 below Rule 26A RSR was amended w.e.f. 25.1.1992. Consequently, their pay was fixed/refixed as per the amendment on account of which they have suffered loss of approximately Rs. 400/- per month till their retirement and thereafter also the same has further adversely affected their pensionary benefits. The petitioners have submitted a Chart as 'Schedule-A' mentioning the date of order of first appointment in service, date of order of promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer, date of order of granting selection scale with pay scale and date of order of promotion as Accounts Officer under the Rajasthan Accounts Service with the year of allotment and pay scale. The same is reproduced hereunder for convenience :| S. No. | Name | Date of order of 1st apptt. in sub-service | Date of order of promotion as AAO | Date of order of granting selection grade with grade | Date of Order of promotion in R.Ac.S. with year of allotment and pay scale |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| | | | | 2000-3500 | 2200-4000 |
| 1. | Mahesh Behari Gupta | 15.1.66 | 20.8.81 | 28.2.92 | 2.7.92 (92-93) |
| 2. | P. D. Singhal | 18.4.69 | 16.2.82 | 23.3.92 | -do- |
| 3. | Tej Singh Rathore | 15.1.66 | 20.8.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
| 4. | Man Mohan Shukla | 15.1.66 | 20.8.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
| 5. | Balbir Singh Tyagi | 15.1.66 | 20.8.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
| 6. | Sitaram Sharma | 15.1.66 | 20.8.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
| 7. | N.K. Chaturvedi | 22.11.65 | 25.7.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
| 8. | Ghanshyam Sharma | 18.4.69 | 16.2.82 | 23.3.92 | -do- |
| 9. | Udho A. Motiani | 2.12.65 | 25.7.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
| 10. | Sumati Chand Jain | 15.1.66 | 12.8.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
| 11. | Ganesh Narain Mathur | 2.12.65 | 25.7.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
| 12. | Nawal Kishore Sharma | 19.4.69 | 30.3.82 | 25.1.92 | 18.7.92 (92-93) |
| 13. | Boyat Singh Verma | 15.1.66 | 20.8.81 | 28.2.92 | 2.7.92 (92-93) |
| 14. | Omprakash Mahajan | 15.1.66 | 20.8.81 | 28.2.92 | 2.7.92 (92-93) |
| 15. | SP Srivastava | 18.4.69 | 16.2.82 | 23.3.92 | -do- |
| 16. | K.K. Gupta | 27.1.66 | 20.8.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
| 17. | Moolchand Kewalia | 30.8.65 | 17.3.81 | 28.2.92 | -do- |
3. The State of Rajasthan had filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been asserted that the selection grades introduced by the Government vide order dated 25.1.1992 (Annexure-3) is in lieu of promotion and in para 13 of the aforesaid it has clearly been mentioned that in case of an employee who gets his regular promotion after getting the selection grade (identical to or lower than the pay scale of promotion post), his pay shall be fixed in
Click Here to Read the rest of this document