Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan v. Late Harish Chandra Trivedi

Rajasthan HC8 Dec 2022SAW/105/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging an order granting third selection scale to a deceased Patwari from his initial appointment date. The Court held that since services were confirmed retrospectively, benefits must be computed from the date of first appointment.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed; the impugned order dated 26.08.2005 was affirmed. No order as to costs.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Late Harish… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 105/2007

¶3

The State of Rajathan through the District Collector, Banswara (Rajasthan)

¶4

The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶5

The Tehsildar, Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.)

¶6

The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Late Harish Chandra Trivedi son of Shri Chandra Shekhar Trivedi, by caste Brahmin, resident of near Laxmi Narain Temple, Village and post Chhinch, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Rajasthan), through his legal representatives:-

¶10

1/1. Smt. Maya Devi W/o Late Shri Harish Chandra Trivedi, aged 60 years, R/o Near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Chhinch, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.)

¶11

1/2. Shri Navneet Trivedi S/o Late Shri Harish Chandra Trivedi, R/o near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Chhinch, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.)

¶12

1/3. Smt. Bhavna Shukla D/o Late Shri Harish Chandra Trivedi, W/o Shri Lokesh Shukla, R/o near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Chhinch, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.)

¶13

1/4. Sanjay Trivedi S/o Late Shri Harish Chandra Trivedi, R/o near Laxmi Narayan Temple, Chhinch, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.)

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Sunil Beniwal,AAG.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. PankajMehta.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶17

Judgment

¶18

08/12/2022

¶19

This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellantsrespondents for assailing the order dated 26.08.2005 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the writ petition filed by the

¶20

(2 of 6) [SAW-105/2007]

¶21

deceased employee of the appellant-department was allowed directing the appellant-respondents to grant 3^rd selection grade in favour of the deceased employee from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 21.06.1975.

¶22

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the deceased employee by an order dated 17.06.1975, issued by Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Banswara (Rajasthan) came to be appointed on the post of Patwari, on being nominated by Employment Exchange Officer, Banswara in the appellantdepartment. The appointment of the deceased employee was on probation for six months. The services of the deceased employee were governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1957’). The deceased employee in the year 1980 passed the Patwar Examination conducted by the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan, Jaipur. On successfully passing the Patwar Examination, the services of the deceased employee were confirmed from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 21.06.1975 and his name was entered in the seniority list of Patwaris working in the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan at appropriate place. The Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan issued a notification dated 25.01.1992 prescribing selection scales in favour of employees having limited avenues of promotion on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The deceased employee was allowed 1^st and 2^nd selection scale on completion of 9 and 18 years of satisfactory services in accordance with the notification dated 25.01.1992 in the appellant-department from the date of his initial appointment i.e.

¶23

(3 of 6)

¶24

[SAW-105/2007]

¶25

21.06.1975. In the year 2002, on being declared surplus, the services of the deceased employee were absorbed in the Revenue Department. On completion of 27 years of satisfactory services, the deceased employee requested the authorities of the appellantdepartment to extend him the benefits of third selection scale. The request so made was turned down on the count that he had passed the Patwar Examination in the year 1980 and therefore, for the purpose of third selection scale, his services shall be computed from the year 1980, instead of the date of his initial appointment. Aggrieved by the denial of third selection scale from the date of initial appointment, a writ petition was preferred before the learned Single Bench which came to be allowed vide order dated 26.08.2005. A challenge has been laid to the order dated 26.08.2005 in the instant intra-court appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased employee was initially appointed on temporary basis, therefore, he was entitled for the benefit of selection scales from the date of passing the Patwar Examination. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 4 (a)(iv) of the Rules of 1957, a Patwari is required to pass the Patwar Examination to become eligible for grant of selection scales. Learned counsel thus urged that the impugned order dated 26.08.2005 may be reversed. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in (2009) 12 SCC 49 .

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the deceased employee submitted that 1^st and 2^nd selection scales were conferred in favour

¶28

(4 of 6)

¶29

[SAW-105/2007]

¶30

of deceased employee on completion of 9 and 18 years of

¶31

satisfactory services from the date of initial appointment, therefore, there was no reason to deny conferment of third selection grade on completion of 27 years of satisfactory services by reckoning services from the initial appointment i.e. 21.06.1975. Learned counsel further submitted that the services of the deceased employee were confirmed from the date of initial appointment and thus it cannot be said that he was not holding the post of Patwari from the said date on substantive basis. Lastly, it was submitted that the initial appointment of the deceased employee was on probation in accordance with the relevant service rules, the same cannot be termed to be an appointment on ad-hoc/temporary basis. Learned counsel thus implored that the instant appeal may be dismissed.

¶32

Heard submissions advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶33

Clause 3 of notification dated 25.01.1992 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

¶34

“The services of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be shall be computed from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules”

¶35

Rule 4 (a)(iv) of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-

¶36

“ 4. Appointments:- (a)…..

¶37

(iv) a person selected for patwar training by the Colonisation Commissioner and obtained

¶38

(5 of 6)

¶39

[SAW-105/2007]

¶40

training in the Patwar Training School and declared successful by the Secretary (Land Records) board of Revenue shall be deemed to be a trained Patwari.”

¶41

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the deceased employee was initially appointed as Patwari vide order dated 17.06.1975 under the relevant service rules on probation. In pursuance of appointment order dated 17.06.1975, the deceased employee joined services w.e.f. 21.06.1975. The deceased employee passed the Patwar Examination in the year 1980. Thereupon, his services were confirmed from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 21.06.1975 making him a regular member of the cadre/service from the said date. The selection scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service were prescribed through notification dated 25.01.1992 in favour of the employees who were facing stagnation in services due to limited avenues of promotion. Obviously, the promotion can only be made from the existing cadre in services. It is not in dispute that since services of the deceased employee were regularised/confirmed from the date of initial appointment, he was thus entitled for promotion on the next higher post as per the relevant service rules.

¶42

From the perusal of Rule 4 (a)(iv), it is clear that successfully obtaining training in the Patwar Training School is essential in order to become a trained Patwari. However, once an employee passes the Patwar Examination there is no impediment in confirming/regularising of services with retrospective effect.

¶43

(6 of 6)

¶44

[SAW-105/2007]

¶45

Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Narain

¶46

Chaturvedi (supra) has dealt with the cases where appointments were made on temporary/ad-hoc/work charged basis without reference to cadre of the service. Therefore, the same has no application in the present set of facts.

¶47

It is apposite to note here that the orders granting 1^st and 2^nd selection grade on completion of 9 and 18 years of service in favour of deceased employee have not been disturbed by the appellant-department.

¶48

In the considered opinion of this Court keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove, there is no justification available with the appellant-department to count the services of the deceased employee from the date of successfully passing the Patwar Examination for the purpose of grant of third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service.

¶49

In the result, the special appeal is dismissed.

¶50

No order as to costs.

¶51

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶52

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶53

46-Prashant/-

The State of Rajasthan v. Late Harish Chandra Trivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Rajasthan v. Late Harish Chandra Trivedi

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

Santosh Devi Vs Kamlesh Kumar

Roopa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gom Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuntesh Sharma Vs Manish Sharma

Dalip Soni Vs State of Rajasthan