Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA
Dr. Praveen Singh Shekhawat, S/o Shri Shravan Singh Shekhawat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13541 of 2019, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595 of 2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12518 of 2019, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12525 of 2019, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12538 of 2019, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12544 of 2019, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2019, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4629 of 2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6693 of 2020
Decided on : 04-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Vinay Jain, Mr. Darshan Jain
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S.Rajpurohit, assisted with Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit, Mr. Gaurav Ranka for Ms. Vandana Bhansali
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reasonableness of the classification of teaching and non-teaching staff in the employment rules and the legality of fixed remuneration for probationer trainees.
Headnote:
Salary Dispute - Employment Rules - Rule 29, Rule 32 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 29 and Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Medical Education Society Jaipur Personnel’s (Recruitment and Other Conditions) Employment Rules, 2017. It highlighted the distinction between Schedule V, VI, and VII and their relevance to teaching and non-teaching staff. The court emphasized the reasonableness of the classification and the legality of fixed remuneration for probationer trainees. It also addressed the issue of natural justice and the State's entitlement to recover erroneously paid amounts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, appointed as Senior Demonstrators, challenged the reduction of their salaries and the recovery of excess amounts paid to them. They argued that the salary discrimination and recovery orders were illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the classification of teaching and non-teaching staff in the employment rules was reasonable and legal. It held that the recovery of erroneously paid amounts was justified, and the State's decision not to increase emoluments for probationers was a policy matter beyond judicial scrutiny.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of salary discrimination, recovery orders, and the State's decision not to increase emoluments for probationers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the reasonableness of the classification, the legality of fixed remuneration for probationer trainees, and the State's entitlement to recover erroneously paid amounts.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were given the liberty to move a representation before the competent authority for retaining remote area allowance and claiming full salary if a relevant judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
ORDER :
1. This batch of writ petitions involves common facts and questions of law and therefore, they are being decided conjointly by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595/2020 : Dr. Praveen Singh Shekhawat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are being taken into consideration.
3. The petitioners were appointed as Senior Demonstrators vide order dated 20.08.2018.
4. After they joined, the petitioners were paid a basic salary of Rs. 70,100/-, House Rent Allowance of Rs. 6,501/- and remote area allowance of Rs. 25,000/-.
5. As per the terms of their appointment, the petitioners being Senior Demonstrators were to undergo a probation period of two years.
6. Before the petitioners could complete their probation period, the respondent No. 6 issued an order dated 14.05.2020 and reduced the salaries to be paid to the petitioners from Rs. 70,100/- to Rs. 58,000/-.
7. Thereafter, another office order dated 29.05.2020 came to be passed, whereby the excess amount of salary paid to the petitioners was ordered to be recovered in four equal quarterly installments (of Rs. 36,500/-) from petitioners’ future salary.
8. By way of present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the above referred orders dated 14.05.2020 and 29.05.2020 on numerous grounds.
9. In some of the writ petitions, a challenge has also been laid to proviso to Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Medical Education Society Jaipur Personnel’s (Recruitment and Other Conditions) Employment Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 2017). Those writ petitions were initially submitted before the Division Bench, but later on, they were ordered to be listed for decision before learned Single Judge by the order dated 03.02.2023, passed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4708/2020 and other connected matters.
10. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is an apparent and significant difference in the emoluments being paid to the petitioners (working as Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators) vis-a-vis the salary/emoluments being paid to the other teaching staff, such as Professors, etc. He submitted that the teaching staff such as Professor, Dean, Superintendent, Additional Superintendent, the Clinical Staff such as Senior Professor, Professor and even the non-clinical staff such as Senior Professors, Professors, etc. are being paid salary as per Schedule VI to the Rules of 2017, whereas the petitioners (working as Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators) are being paid a consolidated salary as per Schedule V.
11. Learned counsel took the Court through Schedule VI, Schedule V and Schedule VII and contended that the respondents have created a discrimination while paying salary to the petitioners considering them to be probationer trainees. It was argued that in Schedule V, only two posts, namely, Assistant Professor and Senior Demonstrator, which are entrusted with teaching duties have been included, while all other posts mentioned in the said Schedule are the posts, which involve non-teaching responsibilities. He thus, argued that these two posts have wrongly been placed in the Schedule V which is meant for non-teaching staff, due to which the petitioners are getting much lesser amount than their colleagues discharging teaching duties.
12. Learned counsel in other words submitted that Schedule VI is meant for teaching staff while Schedule VII is meant for non-teaching staff and therefore, inclusion of posts held by the petitioners, namely, Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators in Schedule V is not only illegal and discriminatory, but also devoid of any logic.
13. Elaborating his arguments further, learned counsel argued that when all the posts entrusted with teaching duties have been kept in Schedule VI, there is no reason or rationale for keeping the posts held by the petitioners in Schedule V and requiring them to work as probationer trainees for a period of two years or one year, as t
