Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 294
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Narain Swarup Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (Ambwani, CJ.)
HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, C.J.
HON'BLE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J.
Narain Swarup Sharma
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 453 of 2006, decided on 16.04.2015
Rajendra Prasad Sharma, for Appellant;
Dharamveer Tholia, Additional Advocate General with Rajan Prajapati, Varun Choudhary, Sumit Teterwal & Himanshu Tholia, for State-Respondents
Headnote:Service Matters — Counting the period of service for grant of selection scale, on completion of 9 years of service — Scope and difference between the term "appointment" and "joining" — A person may be appointed with a date given for joining, or that he may join under certain circumstances, on a later date — Date of joining will not shift his date of appointment — Held — For counting the period of 9, 18, 27 years for the purpose of selection grades, is from the date of first appointment, and not the date on which the Government servant joins.
Appeal allowed. (Para 13)
lsok lEcU/kh ekeys & lsok esa 9 o"kZ iw.kZ djus ij p;fur osrueku iznku djus gsrq lsok vof/k dh x.kuk djuk & ^^fu;qfDr** vkSj ^^tksbfuax** 'kCnksa esa Hksn vkSj O;kfIr & fdlh O;fDr dks ^^tksbZfuax** gsrq nh xbZ rkjh[k ls fu;qfDr nh tk ldrh gS] ;k fd og dfri; ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds rgr fdlh ckn dh frfFk dks ^^tksbZu** dj ldrk gS & ^^tksbZfuax** dh frfFk ls mldh fu;qfDr dh frfFk ugha cnysxh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & p;fur osrueku ds iz;kstukFkZ 9] 18] 27 o"kksZ dh vof/k dh x.kuk djus gsrq lgh rkjh[k izFke fu;qfDr dh rkjh[k ls gksxh u fd og rkjh[k ftl rkjh[k dks ljdkjh deZpkjh tksbZu djrk gSA
¼in la[;k 13½
vihy Lohdkj dhA
2. This Special Appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 07.04.2006, in which a grievance raised with regard to counting the period of service, for grant of selection scale, held that 9 years' period for the first selection grade.
3. The representation filed by the appellant dated 18.03.2005 was disposed of on 07.03.2006, on the premise that he had not completed 9 years of service. Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that since during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had completed 9 years of service, he will be free to make a fresh representation to the competent authority, who may consider and dispose of the same within two months.
4. It is admitted that the fresh representation was not filed, and that, this Special Appeal was preferred, on the ground that learned Single Judge ought to have decided the matter on merits, on the facts before him, as the petitioner's claim was rejected on the earlier representation.
5. It is submitted that the fresh representation would not have served the purpose, as by order dated 07.03.2006, his earlier representation was disposed of, on the premise that he had not completed 9 years of service.
6. A writ petition filed by the petitioner being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.970/1996 (Narain Swarup Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was decided by this Court on 13.09.1996, with the following directions:-
“Consequently, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of Printer Grade-II w.e.f.6.2.1996. However, the petitioner shall be given notional benefits and his seniority shall be counted from 6.2.1996 but the salary shall be paid from the date he joins. The respondents are directed to issue appointment order within three weeks from the date of certified copy of order is supplied to them. Costs of the petition is made easy in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
7. The appointment order was issued, in compliance of the directions dated 13.09.1996, on 25.02.1997. The appointment order was thereafter modified by the Director, by an order dated 27.08.1998, with the stipulation that, in pursuance to the judgment of the Court dated 13.09.1996, the date of appointment is fixed 06.02.1996 for benefit of notional pay and seniority.
8. It is submitted that with the subsequent order dated 27.08.1998, the date of appointment of the petitioner was shifted back to 06.02.1996, in accordance with the directions of the Court, and thus, the denial of the selection grade, on completion of 9 years of service on 07.02.2005, was illegal and arbitrary. Learned Single Judge, on the facts placed before him, ought to have given relief to the petitioner, on the admitted facts, instead of asking him to make a fresh representation.
9. Para 2 & 3 of the order dated 25.01.1992 issued by the State Government, for calculating the period of 9, 18 & 27 years, for grant of selection scales, provide as follows :-
“2. (i) The first selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of nine years, provided that the employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre.
(ii) The Second Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of eighteen years, provided that the employee has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first Selections grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000.
(iii) The third Selection Grade shall be granted from the day on which one completes service of twenty seven years, provided that the employee has not got three promotions earlier as first or the second Selection Grade granted to him, as the case may be, was lower than the pay scales of Rs.2200-4000.
3. The Service of ni
