The court affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to selection scales based on service duration, rejecting claims of misconduct and jurisdictional issues.

JUDGMENT :

This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Appeal No.31/2020 (10/2019), whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.78/2013, whereby the trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) for declaration.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration against the defendants mentioned therein that he was appointed as a regular basis on the post of Conductor on 30.06.1984. The Finance Department of State Government issued a circular on 25.01.1992 in which instructions were given regarding grant of selection scales to the State Government employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Defendants-Corporation adopted the said circular and implemented the same for their employees as well. Plaintiff completed more than 28 years of service from the date of appointment i.e. 30.06.1984. The Chief Manager, RSRTC Bundi depot vide order dated 05.11.2003 granted him first selection scale on completion of 9 years service w.e.f. 01.11.2003 and accordingly his pay fixation was done vide order dated 21.11.2003, whereas plaintiff completed 9 years of service on 30.06.1993 after counting his length of service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 30.06.1984. Thus, first selection scale was wrongly granted to the plaintiff from 01.11.2003 in place of 30.06.1993. The second and third selection scales on completion of 18 and 27 years of services were not given to him. So, defendants be directed to grant first selection scale to the plaintiff from 30.06.1993 instead of 01.11.2003 and accordingly second and third selection scale be also granted to him on completion of 18 and 27 years of service and the arrears to be paid to him alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.

3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor in the Corporation. His services were dispensed with on 25.02.1985. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.02.1988 he was re-appointed on the post of Conductor. He was indulged in corrupt practices and remained absent from duty, for which he was awarded different punishments. So, plaintiff was rightly granted the first selection scale from 01.11.2003 and since his services were not found satisfactory, so, he was not entitled to get second and third selection scales.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get first selection scale from the amended date 30.06.1993 instead of 01.11.2003 after counting his length of service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 30.06.1984 and accordingly he is entitled to get second and third selection scale and to get pay band and grade pay in the revised pay scale after his pay fixation?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the difference amount of salary after his aforesaid pay fixation and also entitled to get 12% interest thereon?

(iii) Whether the dispute raised by the plaintiff having been fallen in the category of industrial dispute, the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff had wrongly valued the suit and paid the deficit court fees?

(v) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred?

(vi) Relief?

5. To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1-Bachu Singh. Defendants failed to adduce any oral evidence but adduce some documentary evidence.

6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2019, partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and hel