Allowed

Priyadarshi Bohra and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Apr 2017CW/8063/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a communication reducing the pay of promoted Junior Judicial Assistants from Rs. 9840 to Rs. 9720. The court quashed the order, holding that pay fixed below the higher pay band's minimum must be stepped up to that minimum before any adjustment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 13.07.2016 quashed; it is declared that minimum pay of Rs. 9840 is correct upon promotion.

Priyadarshi Bohra and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8063 / 2016

¶3

Priyadarshi Bohra s/o Sh. Rajendra Bohra, aged 33 years, by caste Brahmin, Resxident of “Dhan Niwas” Behind Mahatma Gandhi School, Jodhpur.

¶4

Sudhir Vyas s/o Sh. Surendra Vyas, aged 42 years, Resident of Pinjaron Ki Gali, Bheemji Ka Mohalla, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur.

¶5

Navalkishore Bissa s/o Late Sh. Tarachand Bissa, aged 45 years, by caste Brahmin, Resident of Siwanchi Gate, Raghunathpura, Near Shiv Mandir, Jodhpur.

¶6

Hemkaran Purohit s/o Sh. Govindram Purohit, aged about 46 years, Resident of Sadar Bazar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

¶7

Arvind Vyas s/o Sh. Niranjan Vyas, aged 51 years, Resident of Behind Jeevan-Jyoti Hospital, Purani Basti, Sunthla Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶8

Moti Singh s/o Sh. Laxman Singh, aged 31 years, by caste Rajput, Resident of CH-15, High Court Colony, Jodhpur.

¶9

Baburam Bishnoi s/o Shri Bhenaram Bishnoi, aged 33 years, Resident of C-19 Police Line, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

¶10

Kavindra Singh Shekhawat s/o Sh. Madan Singh Shekhawat, aged 36 years, Resident of Manager Quarters, Jaswant Saray, Railway Station Road, Jodhpur.

¶11

Madaram Prajapat s/o Sh. Chainaram Kumhar, aged 37 years, Resident of 341, C-Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

¶12

Mukesh Kumar s/o Shankerlal Sargara, aged 36 years, Resident of 63, Jawahar Colony, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶13

Jogaram s/o Sh. Nagaram Kumhar, aged 26 years, Resident of H/5/20, Vikramditya Colony, Resident Road, Jodhpur.

¶14

----Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶17

Rajasthan High Court through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶18

The Registrar (Administartion), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah.

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[CW-8063/2016]

¶23

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur,

¶24

Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG.

¶25

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶27

Judgment

¶28

10/04/2017

¶29

Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 reads as under:

¶30

“ 24. Fixation of pay on promotion on or after 01.09.2006. - In the case of promotion from one grade to another in the running pay band, the fixation will be done as follows:-

¶31

(i) One increment equal to 3% of the sum of the pay in the running pay band and the existing grade pay will be computed and rounded off to the next multiple of 10. This will be added to the existing pay in the running pay band. The grade pay corresponding to the promotion post will thereafter be granted in addition to this pay in the running pay band. In case where promotion involves change in the running pay band also, the same methodology will be followed. However, if the pay in the running pay band after adding the increment is less than the minimum of the higher pay band to which promotion is taking place, pay in the running pay band will be stepped to such minimum. ”

¶32

The Rule is clear. In case of promotion from a lower grade to

¶33

a higher grade in the running Pay Band the fixation of the pay of the officers promoted is as per the Rule. Meaning thereby, at the first instance, the first limb of the Rule has to be applied and the pay fixed.

¶34

Thereafter further exercise has to be carried out. If there is element of direct recruitment to the post in question, apart from promotion, if as a result of implementation of the first limb of the

¶35

(3 of 3)

¶36

[CW-8063/2016]

¶37

Rule the pay gets fixed at less than the minimum of the higher Pay Band, the pay has to be stepped up to such minimum.

¶38

The writ petitioners joined service as Class-IV employees of this Court. The post of Junior Judicial Assistant has a quota for Class-IV employees to earn promotion through a competitive examination. It is also to be filled up by direct recruitment. The Pay Band in question is ₹5200-20200. Grade Pay is ₹2400. For a direct recruite, the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band in the Grade Pay is fixed at ₹9840. This was initially granted to the petitioners but later on sought to be reduced to ₹9720. The reduction was proposed on the first limb of the Rule, overlooking the second.

¶39

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of quashing the impugned communication dated July 13, 2016. It is declared that on promotion as Junior Judicial Assistant the minimum pay of the petitioners fixed at ₹9840 is correct.

¶40

No costs.

¶41

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.

¶42

Mohit Tak

Priyadarshi Bohra and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyadarshi Bohra and Ors. v. State and Ors.

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

Agro International Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S.Gold Leaf Products, Vs Union of India

Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.