Dismissed

Meetha Lal v. Director Printing and Anr.

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2015SAW/903/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three appeals against a Tribunal order that granted pay stepping up to Gazette Wrapper employees. The Court held that the claim was unsustainable as the employee used for parity comparison was a permanent improvement appointee on the higher post, unlike the appellants who were direct recruits on the lower post, creating initial disparity.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed, and the stay applications filed by the appellants were rejected.

Meetha Lal Vs Director Printing and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶3

(1) DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1015/ 2013 Ashok Kumar Dangi Vs. Director, Printing and Stationery Department & anr.

¶4

(2) DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.903/ 2013 Meetha Lal Vs. The Director, Printing and Stationery Department & anr.

¶5

(3) DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.904/ 2013 Ashok Kumar Bairw a Vs. The Director, Printing and Stationery Department & anr.

¶6

Date of Order :: 23/ 01/ 2015

¶7

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE J.K. RANKA

¶8

Mr. Pawan Sharma on behalf of ] Mr. Ashok Bansal, ] Mr. Vigyan Shah on behalf of ] Mr. Mahendra Shah, ], counsel for appellants. Mr. Rajan Prajapati on behalf ] of Mr. DV Tholia, AAG, ], counsel for respondents

¶9

These three special appeals have been preferred against impugned judgment of the ld. Single Judge dt.30/07/2013.

¶10

The appellants in these appeals joined service on the post of Gazette Wrapper in the year 1973 and the next

¶11

¶12

promotional post in the hierarchy is the post of Binder Gr. II and of Binder Gr. I/Foreman.

¶13

The grievance of the appellants before the ld. Tribunal was that since one R.C. Gupta, junior to them, was junior but is in higher pay-scale of Binder Gr.II, the appellants are entitled to benefit of stepping up of their pay under Rule 26-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules.

¶14

Ld. Tribunal accepted grievance of the appellants and finally observed that appellants are entitled for stepping up/equivalent pay-scale w.e.f. 07/01/1996 on account of the fact that Ramesh Chand Gupta, junior to them, is working in the higher pay-scale.

¶15

Against the order the Tribunal, writ petitions came to be preferred by the State of Rajasthan and the fact, which reveals, is that the present appellants joined service on the post of Gazette Wrapper in the year 1973 and were entitled for grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service on the promotional post i.e. Binder Gr. II and Binder Gr.I/Foreman. As regards Mr. Ramesh Chand Gupta, with whom they claim stepping up of their pay, he was directly recruited on the post of Binder Gr.II which is the promotional post of the present appellants and he was to be considered for grant of selection scale on completion of 9

¶16

¶17

years of service on the post of Binder Gr.I/Foreman and as regards the present appellants are concerned, Binder Gr.I/Foreman would be second selection scale to which they could be entitled on completion of 18 years of service and as such, there could be no parity from Ramesh Chand Gupta who was indisputably one step ahead at the entry level and appointed directly on the post of Binder Gr. II and that being so, the very premise on which the appellants prayed for

¶18

stepping up of their pay, provided under Rule 26-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, was wholly misconceived and the ld. Single Judge, after taking into consideration the material on record, arrived to a conclusion that the parity claimed by the appellants with Ramesh Chand Gupta for stepping up of pay be not legally sustainable and it was the apparent error which the ld. Tribunal committed in granting stepping up of pay to the appellant of 1200-2050 w.e.f. 07/01/1996 and the said disparity of the pay-scale was not on the same post but on different post.

¶19

We have heard counsel for the parities and do not

¶20

find any error being committed in the indisputed facts which has come on record and taken note of by the ld. Single Judge in the order impugned which may call for interference by this Court.

¶21

¶22

Consequently, all the three appeals, being devoid

¶23

of merit, are hereby dismissed & the stay applications are

¶24

also rejected.

¶25

(J.K. Ranka), J.
Raghu

¶26

(Ajay Rastogi), J.

¶27

Cer t i f i cat e: Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng e- mai l ed. Raghu, Sr . PA.

Meetha Lal v. Director Printing and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meetha Lal v. Director Printing and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Ali Vs State Home Departmentors

Sunil Vs State Home Departmentors

R S R T C Jaipur Vs Badri Narain and Anr.

R S R T C and Anr. Vs Kishan Lal Yadav

Ashok Kumar Bairwa Vs Director Printing and Anr.

B N Vidyashankara Vs Mrs Neelam Shekhawat Ors.