Allowed

Bhanwar Singh v. the Director General of Police and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2018CW/18044/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of annual grade increments and recovery from salary. The court held that a prisoner appointed on compassionate grounds under 1975 Rules was not required to pass a type test and is entitled to selection grade from the date of appointment. The impugned orders fixing lower pay and withdrawing increments were quashed. The Tribunal's finding

What did the court decide?

The order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dt.10.09.2013 and the authority's order dt.17.05.2007 revising pay and withdrawing increments are quashed. The respondents are directed to

Bhanwar Singh Vs the Director General of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18044 / 2013

¶3

Bhanwar Singh S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh, Aged About 47 Years, 4, Shekhawati Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, State Crimes Record Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Commandant, Police Training School, Kishangarh, District-Ajmer (Raj.).

¶9

Superintendent of Police, State Crimes Record Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶10

–----Respondents

¶11

Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, through Its Registrar, Jaipur

¶12

----Performa-Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Prakash Yadav, Adv. on behalf of Akhil Simlote, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Addl. Govt. Counsel.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶15

Order

¶16

21/02/2018

¶17

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt.10.09.2013 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur rejecting the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dt.17.05.2007 wherein office of the Director, State Crime Record Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur issued an order of making recovery from the salary of the petitioner and further fixed him on the lower pay scale by deducting annual grade increments.

¶18

(2 of 7)

¶19

[CW-18044/2013]

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was

¶21

appointed on compassionate ground vide order dt.09.04.1987 under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1975 on the post of Lower Division Clerk.

¶22

The petitioner had submitted his joining report on 14.04.1987 and started working. The petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.880-1680/- vide order dt.01.06.1987. The petitioner was granted the annual grade increment vide order dt.17.04.1990 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 930/- w.e.f. 01.09.1988 as per order dt.17.04.1990. The respondents passed an order dt.24.09.1992 wherein the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 01.06.1989 and the earlier order of extention of his service dt.09.11.1990 was cancelled.

¶23

In the year 2003-04 to 2005-06 some internal audit was carried out in the office and the audit party made certain objections and accordingly on the objections, office order dt.17.05.2007 came to be passed by fixing the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.880-1680/- at Rs.880/- per month and the annual grade increments which were granted to the petitioner were sought to be withdrawn on account of not passing the type test. It was further ordered that the annual grade increments which were granted and money paid against such increments, were required to be deposited in the Government treasury.

¶24

The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order dt. 17.05.2007 preferred the Appeal No.885/2007 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal by

¶25

(3 of 7)

¶26

[CW-18044/2013]

¶27

order dt.10.09.2013 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that as per condition of the appointment order, the petitioner was required to pass the typing test and his appointment was made on temporary basis. The Tribunal has further recorded finding that the department had conducted the typing test on 17.04.2007 also but the petitioner remained unsuccessful and failed in the said type test. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that the department while passing the order of refixing the petitioner and withdrawing annual grade increment, did not commit any error as the petitioner’s status was of a temporary employee and he was required to pass the type test.

¶28

The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court challenging the order dt.17.05.2007 passed by the authorities and the order dt.10.09.2013 passed by Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in respect of status of the petitioner as well as the condition treated as mandatory, to pass the type test as per the appointment order.

¶30

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the appointment order dt.01.06.1987 and with the said order, no condition has been mentioned regarding passing the type test. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the Compassionate Rules of 1975, there was no condition of passing the type test and the alleged recovery against the petitioner was wholly unjustified.

¶31

(4 of 7)

¶32

[CW-18044/2013]

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that status of the petitioner was not of temporary in nature, on the contrary he was confirmed vide order dt.24.09.1992 and as such the Tribunal has recorded the finding erroneously without even looking into the facts and pleadings.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the Compassionate Rules, 1996 prescribed the condition of passing the type test as per Rule 9 of the Rules 1996, the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner was naver appointed under the Rules of 1996.

¶35

Counsel for the petitiner further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Govind Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 20.05.2003, reported in (2003) WLC (Raj.) UC 677. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Court in the similar circumstances has taken a view that person who is appointed under the Rules 1975, cannot be denied the benefit of selection grade only on account of not qualifying the type test.

¶36

Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the State/respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference and findings which have been recorded have taken into account, all the facts.

¶37

I have heard counsel for both the parties and considered the material available on record.

¶38

This Court finds that the Tribunal has proceeded on wrong presumption that the status of the petitioner was of temporary in nature and record reveals that the petitioner was confirmed

¶39

(5 of 7)

¶40

[CW-18044/2013]

¶41

employee on the post of LDC by virtue of order issued on 24.09.1992 wherein the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 01.06.1989 i.e. after two years of his initial appointment and joining. The Tribunal has recorded such finding without looking into the facts of the case.

¶42

This Court further finds that the appointment order did not contain any condition of qualifying the type test and denial of annual grade increment on that count is absolutely contrary to the condition of the appointment order.

¶43

This Court further finds that in the Compassionate Rules, 1975, there is no condition attached with the appointment order that the candidate is required to clear any training/departmental examination or type test, as has been envisaged in the Rules, 1996. The Tribunal failed to consider these aspects of the matter and passed the order in a machanical manner.

¶44

This Court further finds that in the case of Govind Singh (supra) this Court has interpreted the Compassionate Rules, 1975 and held that persons who were appointed on compassionate grounds are not required to pass the type test and such persons are entitled for grant of selection grade from the date of their appointment and not from the date on which type test is qualified. The relevant portion of the order is quoted hereunder:-

¶45

“ 6. In my opinion, whatsoever may be the position, the appointment of LDC under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Offices and Ministerial Staff) Rules, 1957 stands on different footing than the appointment under the Rules of 1975 or under the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996

¶46

(6 of 7)

¶47

[CW-18044/2013]

¶48

(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996). Even the Department of Personnel vide order dt.08.12.1996 has clearly specified that the persons who were appointed on compassionate ground were not required to pass type test and when this being the position, the petitioner is entitled to grant of selection grade from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 15.09.1992 and not from 06.03.1993 (the date on which the petitioner qualified the type test) irrespective of the fact that a condition was there in the appointment order dt.08.09.1992 (Annex. 1) passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur (respondent No. 2) that the petitioner was required to qualify type test within six months.

¶49

7. In my considered opinion the persons who were appointed under the Rules of 1975 or the Rules of 1996 on compassionate ground on the post of LDC, they are not required to pass type test because their appointment is not under the Rules of 1957, where passing of type test is must.”

¶50

This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the respondents revising the pay scale of the petitioner, and withdrawing the annual grade increments granted to him since 02.06.1987, have wrongly been withdrawn upto period of 01.09.2006. The order is not sustainable and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶51

The Court further finds that the order of the Tribunal is also not legally sustainable as the findings given on the facts of the case are not according to the record, which was placed before the Tribunal.

¶52

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed, and the order passed by the Tribunal dt.10.09.2013 (Annex.-9) is quashed and set aside

¶53

(7 of 7)

¶54

[CW-18044/2013]

¶55

and further order dt.17.05.2007 (Annex.-6) revising the pay scale of the petitioner and withdrawing annual grade increment, is also quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue consequential order of refixing the salary of the petitioner within two months.

¶56

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR) J.

¶57

A.Kumar/71

Bhanwar Singh v. the Director General of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Singh v. the Director General of Police 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banwari Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Gaurav Gandhi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Surja through Lr Vs Surja through Lrs and Ors.

Shukhvir Singh Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Chittarmal Mahant Vs B.O.R.Ajmer and Ors.

Hemraj Vs State