Dismissed

Mahendra Singh Pagariya v. Raj. Agri. Uni. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2009CW/1788/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioner claimed third selection grade but refused a promoted post offered on the same day he completed 27 years of service. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that voluntarily foregoing promotion bars a claim for selection grades tied to that promotion.

What did the court decide?

Petition for writ dismissed; withdrawal of third selection grade upheld.

Mahendra Singh Pagariya Vs Raj. Agri. Uni… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2009)

¶1

SBCWP No.1788/97 – Mahendra Singh Pagariya v. Raj. Agriculture University & others Date of Order: 05.03.2009 1 of 4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

J O D H P U R

:::

O R D E R

:::

Mahendra Singh Pagaria v. Rajasthan Agriculture University & others

¶8

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1788 OF 1997

¶9

:::

¶10

Date of Order: 05^th March, 2009

¶11

:::

¶12

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

¶13

Mr Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioner

¶14

Mr Vinay Kothari for Mr M.S. Singhvi, for the respondents

¶15

BY THE COURT:

¶16

On being appointed as Lower Division Clerk petitioner entered in the services of respondent-University on 25^th September, 1969. A promotion was accorded to him as Upper Division Clerk in the month of February, 1981. Upon adoption of Government of Rajasthan's Notification dated 25^th January, 1992 relating to grant of selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years service, the University ordered for making fixation of

¶17

SBCWP No.1788/97 – Mahendra Singh Pagariya v. Raj. Agriculture University & others Date of Order: 05.03.2009 2 of 4

¶18

petitioner's pay by according Second and Third selection grades. Fixation of petitioner's pay for Second selection grade was ordered to be made with effect from 25^th January, 1992 and the Third selection grade was proposed to be granted with effect from 25^th September, 1996.

¶19

The University vide order No.F390/AU/Estt/Gr.II/96/2046 dated 25^th September, 1996 promoted the petitioner to next higher post, however, he refused to accept the same, accordingly, the Dean, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur under letter dated 06^th March, 1997 informed to petitioner about withdrawal of the Third selection grade by the Registrar, Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner in view of provisions prescribed under para 8 of the Rajasthan Government's notification dated 25^th January, 1992, which reads as follows:

¶20

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing paragraphs, if an employee foregoes promotion on issue of order to this effect, he shall not be granted second or third Selection Grade under this order.”

¶21

Being aggrieved by the withdrawal of Third selection grade, this petition for writ is preferred. As per petitioner, selection grade was granted by the respondents to him under order dated 24^th July, 1996 and therefore, at a subsequent stage, that could not have been withdrawn.

¶22

SBCWP No.1788/97 – Mahendra Singh Pagariya v. Raj. Agriculture University & others Date of Order: 05.03.2009 3 of 4

¶23

I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The petitioner completed 27 years' service on 25^th September, 1996 and on 25^th September, 1996 promotion was offered to him, which was not availed by him. Para 8 of the notification dated 25^th September, 1992 in quite unambiguous terms prescribes that if an employee foregoes promotion then he shall not be granted relevant Selection grade. This Court in Jugal Kishore Ojha v. State of Rajasthan & others (SBCWP No.2023/1996) while considering the same issue held as follows:

¶24

“I have gone through the pleadings of the petition and the documents annexed therewith. The notification dated 25^th of Jan., 1992 is an order of the government of Rajasthan, department of Finance (Gr.II), prescribing selection grades for employees in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Service and those holding isolated posts. The intention for making the order dated 25^th Jan., 1992 was to remove prevailing stagnation in service. The Government of Rajasthan considered it appropriate to allow selection grades to its employees in the event a promotion is not given to its employees within a period of 9 years of service. Therefore, a government servant is declared entitled for selection grades in three terms and each term consists of 9 years. At the cost of repetition, I consider it appropriate to mention that the intention of the notification dated 25^th Jan., 1992 is to remove stagnation in service. If a person choose to forego promotion then he does not suffer stagnation in service. If a Govt. servant consciously denies to bear the responsibility of higher post, he cannot claim for the benefits attached with that post. In

¶25

SBCWP No.1788/97 – Mahendra Singh Pagariya v. Raj. Agriculture University & others Date of Order: 05.03.2009 4 of 4

¶26

fact there is no stagnation so far as, the person who has foregone promotion, is concerned. According to me, there is no discrepancy in the notification dated 25^th Jan., 1992 and the communication dated 9^th of June, 1994. In fact, the communication dated 9^th of June, 1994 is in the true spirit of the notification dated 25^th of Jan., 1992.”

¶27

In the instant matter too the Third selection grade was to be effected from 25^th September, 1996 as the petitioner was going to complete 27 years service on 24^th September, 1996. The respondent-University on 25^th September, 1996 offered a promotion to the petitioner and as such, the question of stagnation in service was not at all there. The petitioner foregone promotion voluntarily and therefore, it is not open for him now to claim Third selection grade in pursuance to notification dated 25^th January, 1992.

¶28

Accordingly, the petition for writ stands dismissed.

¶29

[GOVIND MATHUR],J.

¶30

mma

Mahendra Singh Pagariya v. Raj. Agri. Uni. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh Pagariya v. Raj. Agri. Uni. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Lal Sahlot Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kishan Lal Vs State and Ors.

Reoti Prasad Vs State and Ors.

Ram Narain Dayama Vs New India Assu. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Banwari Lal Balana Vs Raj. Civil Services Appl. Tri.and Ors.

Hari Prasad Sharma and Ors. Vs Raj. Agri. Uni. and Anr.