Allowed

Kailash Chand Gupta v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Oct 2019CW/6385/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned a retired employee challenging his incorrect placement in the seniority list and denial of selection scale benefits. The High Court directed the State to count the petitioner's prior service in the count of initial department for pension and selection scale, correct his seniority list category, and grant consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's placement in the seniority list was corrected to the category of those who passed the RPSC examination, and he was granted selection scale, pension, and retiral benefits counted from

Kailash Chand Gupta Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6385/1999

¶3

Kailash Chand Gupta Son Of Shri Ram Kumar Gupta, 198A Jawahar Colony, Opposite Meratwal Hospital, Jhalawar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Transport Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Additional Transport Commissioner, Administration, Transport Department, Transport Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parashar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Prajapati

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

24/10/2019

¶13

Matter comes up for hearing. It is noticed that on the previous dates also, no one has appeared on behalf of the Transport Department – State and the case has been adjourned from time to time since last almost 4 years. Today also, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner submits that he was selected through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short ‘the RPSC’) as per the result declared by them on 21.01.1978 on the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short “LDC”).

¶16

After dictating above, Mr. Deepak Prajapat, Assistant to Mr. Rupin Kala, Government Counsel, appears and states that his name has not been shown in the cause list. This Court finds that

¶17

(2 of 6)

¶18

[CW-6385/1999]

¶19

hearing cases are categorized separately in the cause list and in each case name of the department is shown. It is also noticed that name of the G.A. has been mentioned in the cause list. Counsel who is appearing today has not filed his Vakalatnama and therefore, it cannot be said that his name was required to be shown by the cause list section. As noticed above, for last 4 years, the Government Counsel is appearing in this case and several dates has been given for adjourning the matter. Resultantly, 20 years have passed since the case was filed by the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner in this writ petition submits that he was appointed initially in the Irrigation Department after having been selected through the RPSC as LDC on 21.01.1978 and was given appointment on 20.05.1978. After having joined the Irrigation Department, he was taken by the Transport Department by issuing the order dated 17.11.1979, which mentions that the petitioner has qualified the RPSC Examination and the petitioner accordingly joined in the Transport Department on 17.11.1979 and has been consistently working there as LDC. The petitioner has not been granted promotion nor he has been given the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in terms of the circular dated 25.01.1992. The petitioner has further submits

¶21

that seniority list was published by the department. In the provisional seniority list dated 09.12.1996, the name of the petitioner was placed at No.137 in the category of employees who had not passed the selection by the RPSC whereas the petitioner’s name ought to have been shown giving him benefit of service which he has already rendered in the Irrigation Department and he should be placed at No.89 by counting his service in the

¶22

(3 of 6)

¶23

[CW-6385/1999]

¶24

Irrigation Department from 03.06.1978 i.e. the date when he joined the Irrigation Department. Alternatively, the petitioner also submits that he should be placed at No.109, if his earlier services were not counted as in the category of those who have passed the RPSC examination.

¶25

Reply has been filed by the respondent-State wherein it is stated that the petitioner did not inform about he having been appointed as LDC in the Irrigation Department with effect from 03.06.1978 and has informed the same much later in point of time. Although his appointment in the Irrigation Department is not disputed, the respondent-State further submits that the appointment given to the petitioner was not on the basis of selection through the RPSC but on the basis of his name has been sent by the Employment Exchange. Hence, the services rendered in Irrigation Department was not required to be counted for the purpose of placement of the petitioner in the seniority list. The respondents have further submits that with the status of the petitioner as RPSC selected candidate has lapsed after he joined the Transport Department and the fact of the petitioner having cleared the RPSC examination cannot be recognized for the purpose of placement in the seniority list and therefore, his seniority assigned was not disturbed and the petitioner had rightly been sent for the refresher course as he did not come within the limit of seniority.

¶26

Learned counsel has taken this Court to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 31.01.2017. In this rejoinder, the petitioner who has now attained superannuation has submitted that on account of his wrongful placement in the seniority list, he was denied

¶27

(4 of 6)

¶28

[CW-6385/1999]

¶29

consideration for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of selection scale even upto the date of retirement and even if the petitioner’s appointment to be assumed from 17.11.1979, he had completed 9 years of services on 17.11.1988 and thereafter completed 18 years of service on 17.11.1997 but the said benefits have not been granted to him. Learned counsel also submits that he rendered the services in the Irrigation Department which cannot be discounted for the purpose of grant of selection scale or for the purpose of grant of pension. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to the prayer made by him in this writ petition.

¶30

I have considered the submissions.

¶31

Rules 211 and 212 of the Rajasthan Service Rules read as under:

¶32

“211. Commutation of periods of absence without leave without allowance – The authority who sanctions the pension may commute retrospectively periods of absence without leave into leave without allowances.

¶33

212. Condonation of Interruptions – Upon such conditions as it may think fit in each case to impose the Government may, condone interruption in service of Government servant.”

¶34

As per the aforesaid rules, the service rendered by the petitioner in the earlier department of the State, services has to be counted for the purpose of granting of pension as well as for the purpose of selection scale, if the post held by the petitioner is same.

¶35

Taking into consideration that the petitioner was initially appointed as LDC with effect from 03.06.1978, the said period of

¶36

(5 of 6) [CW-6385/1999]

¶37

service from 03.06.1978 upto 17.11.1979 is required to be counted for the aforesaid purpose.

¶38

As regards granting of seniority to the petitioner is concerned, this Court notices that the petitioner was not entitled to claim seniority from the date he was appointed in Irrigation Department as each department is governed by different set of rules. Seniority in the Transport Department would have to be counted from the date the petitioner joined in the Transport Department. A look at the order of appointment shows that the petitioner has been considered for appointment on the ground that he has passed the RPSC examination, thus his appointment is to be treated as a fresh appointment from 17.11.1979 in the department. The fact that the petitioner has passed the RPSC examination cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the petitioner would be, therefore, entitled to be placed in the category of those LDCs, who have cleared RPSC Examination. A look at the seniority list shows that the petitioner's placement has been made in the category of those candidates, who have not cleared RPSC examination between 1.4.1978 to 31.03.1980.

¶39

Thus, the said placement is held to be wrongful and illegal. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner's placement has to be in the category of those who passed the RPSC examination between 8.11.75 to 31.03.1978 and this Court finds that the last person who has been placed in the said category is at No.106 - Gopal Lal Sharma-II who was appointed on 31.08.1979. The petitioner has been appointed on 17.11.1979 in the department hence he would be placed just below said Gopal Lal Sharma in the seniority list dated 25.06.1997 and would be entitled to

¶40

(6 of 6)

¶41

[CW-6385/1999]

¶42

consequential benefits, which would accrue to him on the basis of his placement in seniority list at No.106A i.e. below said Gopal Lal Sharma.

¶43

The relief as claimed by the petitioner is accordingly modified and moulded and as the petitioner has already attained the superannuation.

¶44

The respondents are now directed to grant the benefit of selection scale to the petitioner counting his service from 3.6.1978 for the purpose of granting selection scale of 9, 18 and 27 and also for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits from that date.

¶45

So far as consequential benefits on account of placement of Seniority list is concerned, as the requirement for promotion under the Transport Service Rules is seniority as well as having undergone training, for the purpose of promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, if the petitioner has already undergone training then the petitioner would be given the benefit of promotion as Motor Vehicle Inspector notionally, however, if the petitioner has not undergone training, he will only get the benefit of promotion in his regular line i.e. Ministerial Services as UDC etc.if he is otherwise found suitable and consequential benefits thereto.

¶46

In view of the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ petition is allowed.

¶47

No costs.

¶48

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶49

Sunil/Anu /1

Kailash Chand Gupta v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chand Gupta 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

Deepika Agarwal D/O Late Shri Pramod Kumar Agarwal Vs Uco Bank

Kaila Kumar Paliwal S/O Shri Har Prasad Paliwal Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

Laddu Ram Raigar S/O Shri Onkar Mal Raigar Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Mangal Das Vs State and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Dhaka and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar S/O Data Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan