SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Raj) 2269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Mr. P.K. Lohra, J.
Champalal Vyas - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ No. 6881 of 2015, Civil Writ No. 6897 of 2015 and Civil Writ No. 8587 of 2015
Decided On : 23-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Kshamendra Mathur, for the Petitioners; Mr. B.L. Bhati, Govt. Counsel, for the Respondents

Headnote:

Contract Act, 1872 - Section 23 - Rajasthan Service of Engineer (Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954 - Rule 9 - Rules of 1970 - Rule 9 - Craving desired reliefs - Regular promotion - Petitioners were initially recruited as Lecturer, School Education, pursuant to their selection by the Public Service Commission. With the passage of time, when all the petitioners became eligible for promotion to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School, instead of conveying meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), second respondent ordered their posting as Principal in their existing Pay Band and Grade Pay - Details of each petitioner showing their date of initial appointment as Lecturer School Education and posting as Principal in existing Pay Band and Grade Pay - While working on the post of Principal in their existing Pay Band and Grade Pay - candidature of all the petitioners is considered for regular promotion by the DPC - DPC found all the petitioners suitable for promotion and accordingly recommended for their promotion. Pursuant to recommendations of DPC, petitioners are promoted as Principal. Details about promotion orders and year of vacancy - Held, fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation." - Writ petitions are allowed

JUDGMENT

P.K. Lohra, J. - In all these writ petitions grievances of the petitioners in general are founded on identical facts and for craving desired reliefs they have taken shelter of common grounds, therefore, all are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

2. The undisputed facts of all these writ petitions are that petitioners were initially recruited as Lecturer, School Education, pursuant to their selection by the Public Service Commission. With the passage of time, when all the petitioners became eligible for promotion to the post of Principal, Senior Secondary School, instead of conveying meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), second respondent ordered their posting as Principal in their existing Pay Band and Grade Pay - Patey Vetan. The details of each petitioner showing their date of initial appointment as Lecturer School Education and posting as Principal in existing Pay Band and Grade Pay - Patey Vetan is as under:

Name

Date of Initial Appointment as Lecturer- School Education

Posting as Principal in existing Pay Band and Grade Pay - Patey Vetan (Pay Scale No.17)

Date of Patey Vetan order

Champalal Vyas

22.01.1985

820-1550

16.10.2009

Gopaldas Soni

10.10.1984

820-1550

10.10.2008

Laxmi Narayan

22.01.1985

820-1550

16.10.2009

3. While working on the post of Principal in their existing Pay Band and Grade Pay - Patey Vetan, candidature of all the petitioners is considered for regular promotion by the DPC. The DPC found all the petitioners suitable for promotion and accordingly recommended for their promotion. Pursuant to recommendations of DPC, petitioners are promoted as Principal. Details about promotion orders and year of vacancy is as under:

Name

Date of promotion order

Year of vacancy

Champalal Vyas

06.05.2013

2008-2009

Gopaldas Soni

06.05.2013

2008-2009

Laxmi Narayan

06.05.2013

2010-2011

4. Grievance of the petitioners is denial of Pay Band and Pay Scale of Principal from that date they took the charge of said post. It is pleaded by the petitioners that when they have discharged duties of higher and responsible post, depriving them Pay Band and Pay Scale commensurating with the post is arbitrary and illegal besides being violative of principles of equal pay for equal work. Petitioners have also averred in the petitions that existence of vacancies, their eligibility for the promotional post, was not taken care by the respondents due to their inaction of belated convening meeting of DPC. Besides claiming requisite emoluments in the Pay Band and Pay Scale of Principal for the intervening period, during which petitioners have discharged duties of Principal on Patey Vetan, they have also prayed for benefits of pay fixation by reckoning their services from the date duties of Principal are assigned to them.

5. In the reply, besides taking certain preliminary objections, respondents have pleaded that the claim of petitioners for Pay Band and Grade Pay of Principal is not sustainable being contrary to the terms and conditions of the posting orders. It is also averred in the return that employees are not entitled for higher pay for mere satisfactory services of certain period on higher post without availing promotion in accordance with the rules. As per version of the respondents, issuing orders assigning higher duties of the post of Principal to the petitioners was working arrangement and therefore they have been rightly paid benefits of salary on Patey Vetan basis. Respondents have also averred in the reply that promotions were accorded to the petitioners as per rules on the recommendations of DPC and they have been allowed pay scale of the post of Principal from the date of regular promotion with notional benefit of pay fixation on higher post from the year of vacancy their candidature is adj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top