Allowed

Jagdish Narayan Sharma v. R R v P N L and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2019CW/626/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court appointed itself to examine a 21-year-old pension and salary dispute regarding an employee entitled to a selection grade upon 10 years of service. The court quashed a committee order granting benefits from a later date and directed the grant of benefits from the correct eligibility date.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the commitment order granting selection grade from 20.12.1990 is set aside; selection grade is granted with effect from 29.9.1982; respondents must revise pay and pay arr

Jagdish Narayan Sharma Vs R R v P N L and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 626/1998

¶3

Jagdish Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Resident Of 17/165, Pratap Nagar Housing Board, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Though Its C.m.d.

¶7

Chief Engineer M.m. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Near Ajmer Pulia, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : None

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

15/01/2019

¶13

No one appears for the petitioner. Earlier the Learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on 28.3.2006 after examining the writ petition on merits in absence of the counsel for the petitioner. The D.B. had allowed the petitioner to file review petition. The Learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.9.2012 recalled the order dated 28^th March, 2006 by allowing the review petition, this court was of the view that the petitioner’s submissions have not been recorded in the earlier order.

¶14

Today, no one is present to argue the case. The matter is pending since 21 years. This court, therefore, has thought it proper to examine the case on merits also in absence of the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and this court

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CW-626/1998]

¶17

would not wait for the counsel to support the matter which is pending for more than 20/21 years.

¶18

The case set up by the petitioner is that he had been appointed as Class-IV employee on temporary basis with effect from 25.5.1978 and as per Rajasthan State Electricity Board’s order dated 27.9.1974, he became entitled for grant of selection grade on completion of 10 years of service on 27/30.4.1979. Another order was passed whereby it was directed that 20 % of the class-IV employees shall be granted selection grade on completion of 10 years of service. The petitioner submits in the writ petition that persons junior to him were granted selection grade namely Gopal Singh and Ghanshyam Singh and both of them were fixed in the pay scale of Rs.1640/- whereas the petitioner was continued on Rs.1490/- while he senior to them. The petitioner therefore preferred the writ petition before this court which was registered as S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2801/1997 which was decided by this court directing the Grievance Committee to examine the case of the petitioner and if found entitled to pass necessary orders in accordance of law.

¶19

In compliance of the order passed by court, the Settlement Committee considered his case and found that person junior to him was granted selection scale and therefore had granted the petitioner selection scale from 19.12.1990 i.e. date when one other person Chander Mohan who was appointed on 18^th July, 1972 was granted the selection scale.

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Grievance Committee/Settlement Committee stating that the selection scale has to be granted from completion of 10 years of

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

[CW-626/1998]

¶23

service and not from 20.12.1990 therefore he claims that he should be granted selection scale with effect from 29.9.1982.

¶24

Reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein the respondents have stated that the petitioner was granted benefit to selection scale on completion of 15 & 18 years of service as per new circular and thus the petitioner has concealed the facts from this court. However, it is stated that as per circular dated 30^th April, 1979, 20% of the sanctioned posts are hereby converted into that of selection grade posts and unless person was in list of office quota of 20%, he does not get entitled to grant of selection grade. The petitioner had been transferred at his request to the office from the office of Assistant Engineer(PLCC) Heerapura to Superintendent Engineer(MIC) Jaipur and thus he looses seniority in office of Assistant Engineer(PLCC) Heerapura and was in the office to Chief Engineer. Gopal and Ganshaym was posted in the office of Chief Engineer (PP & M) and they were granted selection grade as per 20% quota in the said office. It is also stated that seniority of class IV employee is prepared at circle level/office level and as per seniority list, the petitioner has been provided the said benefit as persons senior to him had been granted benefit with effect from 19.12.1990. The Settlement Committee has therefore rightly granted him benefit from 19.12.1990. 7. The rejoinder to this writ petition has also been filed wherein petitioner has asserted his submissions and denied the contentions of respondents. Further the petitioner has pointed out that he has been already granted selection grade with effect from 3.6.1991 on completion of 15 years of service and therefore action

¶25

(4 of 5)

¶26

[CW-626/1998]

¶27

of the respondent denying selection grade on completion of 10 years of service and granting it from 1990 itself is not justified.

¶28

I have looked into the documents which have been placed on record and circular dated 27.9.1974 issued by the respondent Board which sanctioned of selection scale on completion of 10 years of service. The order dated 27.9.1974 does not speak of grant of selection scale on 20 % of sanctioned post of particular office but talks about granting of 20 % of the total strength to sanctioned post.

¶29

A look at the decision of the Committee shows that they have taken into consideration the number of posts available in the office of Chief Engineer (M.M) and has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to 20% quota of the total 90 posts available at office of Chief Engineer. Granting selection grade has to be treated in terms of the circular dated 27.9.1974 on completion of 10 years of service and not from any other date. The very purpose of grant of selection scale on completion of 10 years of service would become redundant, if the same is granted from any other date.

¶30

Keeping in view that the selection grade depends on number of years rendered and not any other circumstances, the order of the Committee granting selection scale from 20.12.1990 instead of 29.9.1982 is held to be illegal and unjustified.

¶31

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Committee is set aside to the extent. The date 29.9.1982 from which the selection grade has been granted is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive selection grade with effect from the date 29.9.1982 when he completed 10

¶32

(5 of 5) [CW-626/1998]

¶33

years of service instead of 20.12.1990 as directed by the Committee. The respondents shall revise the pay of the petitioner accordingly and pay him arrears within three months to the petitioner.

¶34

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶35

Anu/

Jagdish Narayan Sharma v. R R v P N L and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Narayan Sharma v. R R v P N L and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suna Ram S/O Shri Bana Ram Vs Stae of Rajasthan

Vikram Chand S/O Sanvata Ram Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Dr Sneh Lata Nagar Anr. Vs State Medical and Health Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Secretary State Government of Rajasthan

Krishan Gopal Gupta Vs State

Shashi Mohan Verma Vs State and Ors.