Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Narayan Das S/o Late Shri Sita Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19131 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2639 of 2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2640 of 2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2641 of 2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2642 of 2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2742 of 2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3693 of 2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6332 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6338 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6354 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6397 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6532 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7779 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7782 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13263 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14285 of 2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19223 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6519 of 2022
Decided on : 11-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Saransh Saini with Mr. Sanjeer Kumar, Mr. Vikash Jakhar, Ms. Hema Tiwari
For the Respondent: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG with Mr.Vivaswan Deekshit
IMPORTANT POINT
Exhaustion of statutory remedies and the expertise of the Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal in adjudicating service disputes.
Headnote:
Pension Dispute - Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal Act - Section 2(c), 2(f) - The court held that the petitioner, being a 'Government Servant' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1976, and the dispute falling under the definition of 'Service Matters' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976, should approach the Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal for redressal of the grievance before seeking writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies and the expertise of the Tribunal in adjudicating service disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order related to pension revision, citing violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner fell within the definition of a 'Government Servant' and the dispute fell under 'Service Matters' as defined under the Act of 1976. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies and relegate the matter to the Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal.
Issues: Maintainability of the writ petition, availability of alternate remedy before the Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal, and violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should approach the Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal for redressal of the grievance before seeking writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies and the expertise of the Tribunal in adjudicating service disputes.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions and directed the Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal to pass final orders within 3 months, emphasizing compliance with the principles of natural justice and the law applicable.
ORDER :
1. In the present bunch of petitions, the scope of the controversy involved, both in law and facts, is identical. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the present bunch of petitions are being taken up for final disposal collectively. For the purpose of recording arguments, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19131/2023 titled as Narayan Das vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., is being taken up as the lead file.
2. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:-
“i) Issue a writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the impugned order of Revised Pension Authority No. 7479505® Dated: 22.11/2019 under Clause of Para-6 of FD Memorandum No. F.12 (6) FD/Rules/2017 Pt-1 dated:05 Nov 2019 being unfair and inconsistent to the provisions of para-2, 3, 5 of FD Memo No. F. 12 (6) FD/Rules/2017 Pt-1 dated: 12 Jun 2019.
ii) issue a writ, order or directions declaring that the pre-01/01/2016 Pensioners, Librarians (Selection Scale) drawing pension in RPB 37400-67000m with AGP 9000/-are eligible for the notional pay fixation in RPB 37400-67000 with AGP 9000/-prescribed for the revision of pension of pre-01/01/2016 pensioner under Clauses of para-2, para-3 and para-5 of the Government of Rajasthan FD (Rules) Division Memorandum No. f.12(6) FD/ Rules/ 2017 Pt-1 dated: 12 Jun 2019
3. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents for the maintenance of parity in pension revision to all pre-2016 pensioners and to issue a revised pension authority to the petitioner in Level in the Pay Matrix at AL-13A prescribed under Clause of Paras-2, 3, 5 of the Government of Rajasthan FD (Rules) Division Memorandum No. F.12(6) FD/ Rules/2017 Pt-1 dated: 12 Jun 2019 corresponding to RPB 37400-67000 with AGP 9000/-
4. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
5. Award costs.”
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order impugned dated 22.11.2019, grave discrimination has been caused qua the petitioner, which in turn, violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrined under Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it is averred that the respondents have issued the revised authority of pension to many pre-2016 pensioners, belonging to the same category as the present petitioner, drawing pension in RPB 37400-67000 with AGP 9000/-in level in the Pay Matrix at AL-13A but denied the same benefit to the petitioner(s) by issuing authority in level in Pay Matrix at AL12(Annexure-6). Therefore, in the foregoing circumstances, the instant petition is filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Vide orders dated 28.02.2024 and 04.03.2024, this Court had raised specific queries before the counsel for the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the instant petition, especially in light of the existence/availability of an alternate and equally efficacious remedy in law before the learned Rajasthan Administrative Tribunal. In response, to draw out a case for the maintainability of the instant petition before this Court, learned counsel contended as under:-
4.1. That writ jurisdiction of the High Court can be evoked when there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the facts of the present case, despite raising the grievance(s) by way of representations, the same were not considered by the respondent-authorities. Rather, a deaf ear was turned to the said representations.
4.2. That the petitioner is senior citizen aged 76 years, who retired way back in the Year 2002. Therefore, relegating the petitioner’s grievance to RAT, at this belated stage, shall cause undue hardship to the petitioner.
4.3. That from time to time, memorandum/circulars have been published by the Government of Rajasthan, Finance Department (Rules Division). Relying upon the memorandum dated 05.11.2019, learned counsel submitted that the learned RAT
