Dismissed

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary v. Durga Shankar Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2019SAW/714/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Special Appeal, the High Court dismissed the State's challenge to the promotion of a staff member from Sais to Dresser. The Court rejected the narrow interpretation that Class-IV promotions must remain within the Class-IV cadre, interpreting the 1992 Circular to allow progression to subsequent posts in the same service. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision granting higher pay was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the State was dismissed, and the stay application was disposed of.

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.714/2019

¶3

With D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.8071/2019 In

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5308/2000

¶5

State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶6

The Director, Animal Husbandry, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Durga Shankar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Animal Husbandry Hospital, Dhanna Talai, Tonk (Raj.)

¶10

Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Prateek Singh

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

13/08/2019

¶17

Heard Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, learned Additional Advocate General for appellants, and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶18

The argument of Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, learned Additional Advocate General for appellants, is that according to clause 4 of the Circular dated 25.01.1992, the first selection grade, wherever admissible in terms of the Circular, shall be pay scale of the next promotion post in the same service/cadre, i.e., ClassIV/Minister/Subordinate service and since the cadre of the

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[SAW-714/2019]

¶21

respondent no.1, who was working on the post of ‘Sais’, being Class-IV service, his promotion could also be given only in the same cadre of Class-IV and therefore, according to her, Clause 4 of the aforesaid Circular dated would be attracted and the respondent no.1 would be entitled to pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale, as specified in Clause 5 of the Circular dated 25.01.1992.

¶22

We have perused the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 15.05.2000, wherein it has been categorically said that the next post of promotion for ‘Sais’ is Dresser and thereafter Live Stock Assistant. The respondent was thus held entitled to the pay scale of the post of Live Stock Assistant as second selection grade.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has produced for our perusal the order of promotion of the respondent no.1, though which came to be passed at later stage on 16.11.2005 by which he was actually promoted on the post of Dresser. He has also produced for perusal of the Court the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977. As per entry no.10 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1977, the post of Dresser/Laboratory Attendant is required to be filled in 100% by promotion from Class IV Servants other than those doing purely office job as Peon/Jamadar/Daftari etc.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the respondent no.1 was entitled to the post of Dresser since he was holding the post of ‘Sais’ and he was rightly promoted.

¶25

Having heard learned Additional Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondent no.1, we are not inclined to agree with argument that the promotion of Class IV shall always

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[SAW-714/2019]

¶28

be made in the same cadre of Class-IV. There is no warrant for such narrow interpretation of the language of clause 4 of the Circular dated 25.01.1992, which, inter-alia, provides that “the first selection Grade, wherever admissible in terms of this order shall be the pay scale of the next promotion post in the same service/cadre i.e. Class-IV/Ministerial/Subordinate Service...”. The wordings ‘in the same service/cadre i.e. ClassIV/Ministerial/Subordinate Service, amply make it clear that the promotion in the service from stage to stage, i.e., the Class-IV – Ministerial – Subordinate, have been indicated specifically and promotion has to be always from a lower post to higher post, which has been substantiated also by actual promotion of respondent no.1.

¶29

There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. This also disposes of stay application.

¶30

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶31

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶32

//Jaiman//42

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary v. Durga Shankar Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary v. Durga Shankar Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma

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

Dr. Pankaj Saxena Son of Shri Brij Mohan Saxena, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ratan Singh Meena S/O Shri Baniyaram Meena Vs Shri Praveen Gupta Secretary Department of Finance (Treasury and Accounts)

Sunita Choudhary D/O Shri Shyoji Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Pradeep Kumar Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Vandana Rajauria D/O Jagdish Babu Rajauria

State of Rajasthan Vs Lakhama Ram Meena S/O Shri Nanda Ram Meena