The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the second selection grade based on service counted from the date of initial appointment, affirming the legality of benefits from that date.

JUDGMENT :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)

The matter pertains to the year 2005, thus, was listed under the category "Oldest Cases for Early Disposal".

2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

"It is therefore mostly humbly and respectfully prayed that by appropriate writ order or direction it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that:-

The present petition may kindly be allowed. The petitioner may be held entitled for grant of selection grade as soon as he completes 18 years of service from the date of his initial appointment. The respondents be further directed to make the payment of the above benefit along with the interest @18% per annum on the above arrears to the petitioner forthwith.

That any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.

That costs of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher on temporary basis vide office order dated 07.08.1979 passed by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sahada, District, Bhilwara, and accordingly, joined his duties on 09.08.1979. Subsequently, another order came to be passed by the Development Officer on 26.07.1984, whereby the petitioner was selected from the temporary working teachers and was given appointment in the third pay scale (490-840), while keeping him on probation for a period of two years.

3.1. Thereafter, vide office order dated 12/19.04.1990, in accordance with the decision taken in a meeting of Distribution and Administration Standing Committee, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Teacher Grade III from the date of initial appointment i.e. 09.08.1979.

3.2. Subsequently, the Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 25.01.1992 prescribed the selection grades for the employees in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts and fixation of pay in the selection grades, in pursuance of the same, such persons became entitled for grant of selection grades after putting in 9, 18 and 27 years of service; accordingly, the petitioner was given the benefit of first selection grade vide order dated 28.10.1992, wherein the date i.e. 09.08.1979 was considered as the date of appointment; however the petitioner has been denied the benefit of second selection grade upon completion of 18 years of service. Thus, being aggrieved of denial of the benefit of second selection grade, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a circular was issued on 31.07.2001 whereby the Government of Rajasthan had made it clear that a person shall be entitled for grant of selection grade from the date of appointment itself, thus the action on part of respondents in not granting the benefit of second selection grade was illegal, unjust and contrary to law.

4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner was appointed after following due process of law and thus, was entitled to the benefit of the second selection grade after completion of 18 years of service from the date of his initial appointment and the said date of appointment had already been confirmed vide the order dated 12.04.1990, thus there was no reason for denying such benefit to the petitioner from the initial date of appointment.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed as the issue in question could have been raised before the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal.

5.1. It was further submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not made after following the due process of law, as t