The court established that pay protection provisions apply equally to employees transitioning from Central to State services, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment under the law.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed with following prayers:

“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to protect the pay of the petitioner and further probation be changed to one year only, and give her arrears accordingly by following the notification dated 30.10.2017 issued by the Government of Rajasthan.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iii) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ajatshatru Mina submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Air Officer Commanding, AFCAO, New Delhi with the Air Force Central Accounts Office, New Delhi (Central Services). Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for the post of Junior Commercial Tax Officer in the Govt. of Rajasthan (State Services). It is an overarching fact that prior to commencement of the said service i.e. Junior Commercial Tax Officer, the petitioner had sought for NOC from the erstwhile department i.e. Air Force Central Accounts Office, New Delhi and the said NOC was granted. Only after obtaining the NOC, the petitioner had joined the latter’s service w.e.f. 31.12.2021, initially for a period of two years probation on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 21,942/-.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that bare perusal of Annexure-A/R/2 i.e. the Last Pay Certificate(Provisional) makes it evident that approximately Rs. 50,000/- was drawn by the petitioner from her quondam service, and that amount is much higher than her present service. It was further averred that the petitioner is a widow and has responsibility of upbringing of her two daughters and due to such low salary, is facing severe hardship.

4. It was further submitted that the petitioner had duly addressed her grievances qua ‘Pay Protection’, by filing a representation before the concerned authorities. The respondents vide impugned order dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure-3), rejected the submission of the petitioner stating that as per the provisions enshrined under Rule 26 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (referred as RSR Rules) the petitioner is not entitled to the said ‘Pay Protection’, as the petitioner was an erstwhile employee of Central services and not State service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized on notification dated 30.10.2017, passed by the State of Rajasthan causing amendment in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 2008, submitting that the respondents have failed to apply the amended provisions of Rule 26 of RSR Rules. Additionally, the following averments were made:

5.1 While considering the case at hand, the respondents have overlooked the amended provisions of Rule 26 (1) Exception, wherein, it is categorically stated that the fixation of pay of a probationer-trainee on successfully completing probation period, shall be in the pay matrix in the relevant level.

5.2 The petitioner is even entitled to emoluments as per amendment of Rule 26A.

6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the dictum of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 titled as East Coast Railway & Ors. vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors. and Allied Motors (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (1997) 3 SCC 472. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, it was asserted that to commence efficacious adjudication in matters pertaining to such enormity, purposive interpretation should be adopted, so that the enacted Act/provisions is within the context of the objective of the Act. It was further submitted that if the said interpretation is not applied qua pay protection, then the scheme of the