Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Ramswroop Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through District Collector Land Record, Bundi – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4274/2018
Decided On : 24-11-2022
Selection Scale - Retiral Benefits - Circular dated 25.01.1992 - The court discussed the provisions of the circular issued by the State Government providing for grant of first, second, and third selection grade on completion of regular service of 9, 18 & 27 years. The court found that the circular required a satisfactory service record for the grant of selection grade and did not contain any clause regarding the operation of penalties against an employee for the purpose of grant of selection scale. The court also referred to a subsequent circular that changed the position regarding the effect of minor penalties on the grant of selection scale. The court highlighted the violation of principles of natural justice by the respondents in amending the order of grant of the first selection scale of the petitioner after his retirement without giving him a show cause notice. The court also cited a relevant judgment by the Apex Court in a similar case and held that the petitioner was entitled to the first selection scale and post-retiral benefits, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to pay consequential post-retiral benefits to the petitioner along with arrears and interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to quash an order and for the release of retiral benefits. The petitioner was appointed as Patwari and was granted first, second, and third selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service. After retirement, the respondents issued an order amending the date of the first selection grade, affecting the petitioner's post-retiral benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents violated principles of natural justice by amending the order of grant of the first selection scale of the petitioner after his retirement without giving him a show cause notice. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the first selection scale and post-retiral benefits, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to pay consequential post-retiral benefits to the petitioner along with arrears and interest.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, entitlement to first selection scale and post-retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the first selection scale and post-retiral benefits, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to pay consequential post-retiral benefits to the petitioner along with arrears and interest.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
ORDER
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is decided finally.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to quash and set-aside the order dated 21.12.2017 and further prayer is for releasing the retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner.
3. The brief facts as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari on 29.07.1983, State Government had issued a circular dated 25.01.1992, extending the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that in pursuance of circular dated 25.01.1992, he was granted benefit of first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service vide order dated 30.07.1993 with effect from 30.07.1992 and accordingly his fixation was made.
5. The petitioner has pleaded that after completion of 18 years of service, benefit of second selection scale was granted to him vide order dated 30.08.2002 w.e.f. 30.07.2002 and accordingly fixation was made.
6. The petitioner has further pleaded that on completion of 27 years of service, the benefit of third selection scale was granted to him vide order dated 13.03.2014 w.e.f. 30.07.2013 and his fixation was also done.
7. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents issued a promotion order, promoting him on the post of Inspector Land Record vide order dated 07.04.2017 and thereafter on attaining the age of superannuation, he got his retirement on 31.07.2017.
8. The petitioner has pleaded that after his retirement, he became entitled for retiral dues and as such, when no action was taken, the petitioner had to file representation before the Authorities.
9. The petitioner has pleaded that instead of releasing post retiral benefits, the respondents issued impugned order/amended order dated 21.12.2017, wherein the date of first selection grade of the petitioner was changed from 30.07.1992 to 30.07.1994 on the basis of some objections to be raised by the Accounts Officer. The said order amended the earlier order dated 30.07.1993, by which first selection grade was to be given to the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, submitted that the service record of the petitioner was considered by the respondents while granting him first, second and third selection grade as per circular issued by the Finance Department dated 21.01.1992.
11. Learned counsel submitted that in Clause 7 of the said circular, it was provided that selection grade in terms of the order was to be granted to those employees, whose service record was satisfactory and record of service which made one eligible for promotion, on the basis of seniority, was to be considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of selection grade.
12. Learned counsel submitted that the Government of Rajasthan had also taken a decision on 11.11.1992, making effect from 21.01.1992, whereby satisfactory service record of an employee was to be considered on the basis of his APAR and as such, since the petitioner did not have any adverse APAR, as such, he was rightly given first selection grade and thereafter second and third selection grade.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents did not give even notice to the petitioner before issuing order dated 21.12.2017 and straightway after retirement of the petitioner, they issued an order which effects the benefit which was already granted to him as well as his post retiral benefits.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the earlier orders which were passed by the respondents themselves had taken into account the relevant service record of the petitioner and as such, only on the basis of some objections raised by some Accounts Officer, the impugned order could not have been issued.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1994 (6) SCC 154, has laid
Violation of principles of natural justice and entitlement to post-retiral benefits.
Entitlement to service benefits and post-retiral benefits is determined based on the service record, consideration of penalty orders, and timely implementation of entitlements.
No recovery of excess selection grade pay from retirees' pensionary benefits; refixation post FR 22-B amendment required.
No recovery of excess selection grade pay from retired employees' pensionary benefits pending FR 22-B amendment.
Hon’ble Supreme Court, clearly reveals that there was no direction to pay interest against so called delayed payments.
Service Matter - Suspension - Quashed - When impugned punishment order has been quashed, petitioner shall be restored back in a position which stood on date of passing such order which has been quash....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
