Dismissed

Jugal Kishor Ramawat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 May 2019SAW/804/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Bench dismissed an appeal seeking restoration of historical pay parity between Section Cutters and Lab Assistants. The Court held that despite prior recommendations restoring parity, the petitioner's claim was barred due to fatal delay and lack of continuous entitlement. Both Single Judge reasoning and cited precedents were distinguished.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jugal Kishor Ramawat Vs State of Rajasthan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 804/2018

¶3

Jugal Kishor Ramawat S/o Shri Ram Ramawat, Resident Of- Near Punjab National Bank, Outside Jassusar, Vedh Magharam Colony, Bikaner.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Commissioner, Department Of College Education, Rajasthan Block-Iv, Dr. S. Radhakishan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Govt. Of Rajashtan, Jaipur.

¶10

The Joint Secretary Rules, Department Of Finance, Govt. Of Rajashtan, Jaipur.

¶11

The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Saluja with Ms. Archana Joshi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.

¶14

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

20/05/2019

¶17

The petitioner/appellant had approached this Court claiming that the pay parity that existed right up to 01.02.1992 as between Section Cutter and Lab Assistant was wrongly distributed, leading to diminishing of his pay and emoluments. A learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay.

¶18

The undisputed facts are that the appellant was recruited as a Section Cutter; at that time, as indeed right from 1968 onwards, parity has existed as between the two classes or group of

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[SAW-804/2018]

¶21

employees - Section Cutter on the one hand and the Lab Assistant on the other. This parity was reiterated by the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 , framed pursuant to the recommendation of the 4^th Pay Commission. The relevant extract of the said rules are as follows:

¶22

“ GROUP C AND B

¶23

Sl. No.	Post	Present Scales Revised Scales
11	All post carrying present scale specified in col.3	(a) 330-560 (b) 330-560 (c) 330-560 (d) 290-560 (e) 290-560 1200-30-1560- 40-2040 From page 73 ”

¶24

Apparently, from 1992, with the advent of the revised pay scales in Rajasthan, the pre-existing parity between the two categories was distributed. The Lab Assistants were granted the revised pay scale benefits recommended by Central Government whereas Section Cutters like the appellant were deprived. This issue appears to have been examined by the Anomalies Committee by its order dated 08.02.1999 (noted in para 5) it stated that the disparity in pay was unjustified and recommended that the original parity ought to be restored from 1.9.1988. The petitioner approached this Court in 2018 complaining that the denial of pay parity resulted in deprivation of monetary benefits which had a long-term impact. To get over the objection of delay and laches, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India AIR 1996 (SC) 669. The learned Single Judge, however, was unpersuaded by the argument and rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay.

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[SAW-804/2018]

¶27

Mr. Saluja, learned counsel argues firstly that the historical pay parity which existed between the two classes ought to be restored and that the State has furnished no rationale for continued deprivation. Reiterating that the Pay Anomaly Committee Recommendations of 08.02.1999, clearly stated that the Section Cutters ought to be given the same pay-scales as Lab Assistants from 1988, he also urged that the denial of that benefit, is not backed by any reason.

¶28

Learned counsel also relied upon the reply to the appeal framed by the respondents to say that no rule germane reasons have been given to deny the relief sought for.

¶29

This Court is of the opinion that the ratio in M.R. Gupta (Supra) does not not ipso facto apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that case, there was no dispute with respect to the post or the pay-scale. Rather, the grievance of the litigant was that the benefit of pay on account of an added increments ought to have been given to him by virtue of FR-22C was denied.

¶30

In these circumstances, the Supreme Court had no hesitation in holding that the denial of pay in the regard to such personal grievances amounted to a continuing cause of action since the substance of the grievance is on a recurring basis.

¶31

In the present case, however, the petitioner seeks a direction that would effectively mean the turning back of the clock for about 27 years. To get over this, Mr. Saluja, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors. vs. G.S. Uppal & Ors. 2008(7) SCC 375.

¶32

In that case, the pay parity of the concerned employees was established primarily on account of the resolution of a local body,

¶33

(4 of 5)

¶34

[SAW-804/2018]

¶35

i.e. Municipal Corporation that the State Government pay-scales would be adopted and made application to be its employees. Upon the revision of the pay-scales the benefit of which were given to the corporation employees, a pay anomaly arose.

¶36

The employees of the State Government represented to the authorities which led an Anomalies Committee recommending reason which was carried out. The resulting benefit was however, not given by the corporation. In these circumstances, the Court held as follows:

¶37

“31. A careful examination shows that the issue was not really about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers on par with PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took place, the revised pay scales that were given to the Engineers of the State Government were also given to the engineers of the Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining the parity. What was not extended to the Corporation employees, which is the subject mater of the grievance, is the further revision by way of ‘removal of anomaly in pay scales’ given to AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the State Government with effect from 1.5.1989 vide circular dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real question would be whether what is given by way of anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of State Government, should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of engineers of the Corporation. 32. When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a class of Government servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment of the pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the pay revision extended to the government servants has already been extended to the employees of the Corporation also, it follows that any correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the government servants should also be made in the case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the pay scale which is the subject matter of the correction. It should be borne in mind that the question whether Corporation

¶38

(5 of 5)

¶39

[SAW-804/2018]

¶40

engineers were on par with PWD Engineers and should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when the pay scale revision granted to Government (PWD) engineers was extended to the corporation Engineers also with effect from 1.1.1986. That question did not again arise when the anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with reference to the Government engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of Government engineers was rectified, the rectification should apply to Corporation engineers also to maintain the parity.”

¶41

It is immediately apparent from a reading of the above extracts that there was no dispute with respect to the applicability of the pay-scale or the entitlement to other class of employees. In the present case however, what the petitioner/appellant wishes the Court to do is to declare pay parity that existed up to 1988 and which was changed w.e.f. 1992, ought to be restored. In the facts of this case, the delay was fatal- because without establishing entitlement (in terms based on parity) there was no pre-existing right of the petitioner, to the pay-scale.

¶42

Having regard to the overall circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the ratio in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation (Supra) is also inapplicable. For the foregoing reasons, reasoning of the Court agrees with the learned Single Judge.

¶43

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶44

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶45

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶46

37-Ashutosh/-

Jugal Kishor Ramawat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jugal Kishor Ramawat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs Sunita

Ramesh Kumar Choudhary Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Anil Kumar Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Union of India Vs Smt. Ameena

Arun Bithu Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhagan Lal Vs Union of India