Honble CHAUHAN, J.–These petitions have been filed for declaring the provisions of Rule 14 (1) (i) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987, in so far as it prescribed 1.9.1986 as cut -off date for the purpose of grant of advance increment, ultra vires and for quashing the order dated 7.3.89 (Annexure 7) issuing the clarification for revision of pay scale, and all consequential orders (Annexures 12 to 27).

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that the Union of India had issued directions to the Stats to create employment opportunities for the youth and in pursuance of the same, respondents issued an Advertisement dated 3.5.75 as part of Employment Promotion Programme (Annexure 1) and invited applications for training/apprenticeship on the post of Lower Division Clerks. Petitioners were selected for training vide letter dated 6.2.1976 (Annexure 2). During training, petitioners were asked to furnish bonds purporting to be under the Apprenticeship Act,1961, for payment of damages in case the training was abandoned before completion. After completion of the training, they were offered appointment by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Board) vide letter dated 10.12.76 (Annexure 4) with retrospective effect, i.e. the date on which an individual completed six monthstraining.

(3). The State of Rajasthan revised the pay scales of its employees by promulgating the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called, the Rules, 1987) with effect from 1.9.86 and Rule 14 (1) (ii) of the said Rules provides that a Government servant who had completed ten years of service, but less than 20 years of service on 1.9.86, shall be granted one advance increment. The Board also adopted the said Rules vide Resolution dated 21.10.87 (Annexure 5) with effect from 1.9.86. By reckoning the period of training in service, petitioners were considered to have completed ten years service on 1.9.86 and they were given the benefit of the said provision of the Rules,1987 and fixation of their pay was made accordingly. Vide letter dated 7.3.89 (Annexure 7), the Board issued a direction that while computing the period of ten years of service for grant of advance increment, period rendered during apprenticeship/training shall not be counted and in pursuance of the said order dated 7.3.89, the pay scale of some of the petitioners were reduced. Petitioners had filed D.B.C.W.P. No. 1030/1989, Nand Lal and others vs. R.S.E.B. and others.and D.B.C.W.P. No. 1044/1989, Ajay Kumar & others vs. R.S.E.B. and others. This Court granted interim orders not to change the pay scale or not to make any recovery in pursuance of the said order dated 7.3.89. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the judgment and order dated 25.5.89 (Annexure 9) and respondents were directed to decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners there in and all other similarly situated persons. The Board passed the impugned orders (Annexures 12 to 27) reducing pay scales of the petitioners and effecting recovery from them of the amount which had been wrongly paid to them as advance increment after giving petitioners full opportunities of hearing. Hence these petitions.

(4). Heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. L.M. Lodha, for respondents.

(5). Mr. Singhvi has seriously assailed the validity of cut off date canvassing that the cut off date has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved and is liable to be quashed being discriminatory and, thus, violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Lodha has contended that while fixing the cut-off date, the Authorities had to consider the financial consequences of conferring an additional benefit on its employees and the Authority has to fix a date for giving the benefit and, thus, it cannot be said to be arbitrary by any means and the cut off date fixed herein is valid havi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document