Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan v. Ameer Chand Jain Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Jain

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2022SAW/177/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge appeal dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court bench held that a previous Division Bench order regarding the grant of selection scale and pension benefits to a retired university employee remains binding, rendering the appeal non-interferable on merits, and disposed of the condonation of delay application.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications, including condonation of delay, were disposed of.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Ameer Chand Jain… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 177/2021

¶3

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

¶4

The Director, College Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur

¶5

The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jaipur

¶6

----Appellants Versus

¶7

Ameer Chand Jain Son Of Late Shri Mool Chand Jain, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of E-141, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Choudhary for Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG through VC For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Judgment

¶12

17/01/2022

¶13

Counsel for the appellants submits that he has filed present appeal against the impugned order dated 03.05.2019.

¶14

The facts stated in the present appeal pertains to the fact that the appellants introduced Career Advancement Scheme with effect form 01.01.1986 vide order dated 01.05.1989 for university and government lecturers. It was further averred by the petitioner that the scheme provides for grant of senior and selection scale after 8 years and 16 years of service after regular appointment respectively.

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[SAW-177/2021]

¶17

It was further submitted that respondent No.2 vide order dated 08.04.2004 granted some of the librarians and PTIs selection scale from the date it became due. The respondent before the learned Single Judge submitted that his record was neat and clean and in one of the adverse remarks of APAR 19891990 by the department, on representation of petitioner was expunged by order dated 12.10.1992. Considering the same the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in these terms which are reproduced below:-

¶18

“I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶19

This Court finds that the only impediment, which was said to be against the petitioner was the adverse remarks in his APAR for the year 1989-90 and the same was deleted by communication dt. 12th October, 1992 and as such there was no adversity in the service record of the petitioner.

¶20

This Court finds that the Screening Committee was not apprised with the complete service record of the petitioner and they formed opinion only by observing that the petitioner was not found suitable for grant of Selection Scale on the basis of his record.

¶21

This Court finds that the respondents in their reply have also pleaded only in respect of the adverse remarks which were communicated to the petitioner for the year 1989-90 and there is no mention of other adversity in the reply filed by the respondents. This court finds that if the adverse remarks in the APAR for the year 1989 of the petitioner were already deleted, as communicated to the petitioner vide letter dt. 12th October, 1992, there was no justification to hold that petitioner did not have the proper service record for grant of benefit of Selection Scale.

¶22

This Court finds that the petitioner had already stood retired on 30th April, 1996 and after lapse of about 8 years, the meeting had taken place to consider the grant of benefit of Senior and Selection Scale. The Committee ought to have vigilant and should have been appraised of the service record of employees and without having complete inputs about service particulars

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[SAW-177/2021]

¶25

of the petitioner, the wrong opinion was formed for denying Selection Scale to the petitioner.

¶26

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed and the direction is required to be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to grant him selection scale on completion of 8 years of service in senior Scale and as such he is entitled to be granted benefit of selection scale with effect from 1st April, 1996.

¶27

This Court further deems it proper to direct that the respondents should carry out the aforesaid exercise within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the arrears on account of revision of grant of Selection Scale, may be released to the petitioner immediately and in case the said exercise is not carried out and the benefits are not granted within a period of five weeks, the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annumn from the date of order passed by this Court. The consequential benefits of revision of pension and post retiral benefits will also be conferred on the petitioner.”

¶28

Being aggrieved, the State has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Court. At the outset, counsel for the appellants-State submits that the controversy is no more res integra in terms of D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.339/2020 (State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Agrawal) and other connected matters wherein in the identical and similar facts and circumstances, Hon’ble Court has taken following view:-

¶29

“11. The Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India (Supra)has specifically dealt with the issue and has held that the ACR needs to be communicated to the employees within a reasonable time. Since the APAR in this case has been communicated after the filing of the writ petitions i.e. after more than thirty years and now directing the respondents to submit the reply or representation would be a futile exercise, as the respondents have retired way back. It is also evident that since 1988, satisfactory remarks has been made the yardstick for grant of senior/selection scale and respondents herein have satisfactory remarks in addition to good and outstanding, they have no adverse remarks in their entire career, hence, we do not find any force in the present appeals.”

¶30

(4 of 4) [SAW-177/2021]

¶31

Considering the said submission, we are of the view that the present appeal need not to be interfered and is disposed of in above terms.

¶32

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶33

In the light of the fact that the matter stands concluded in terms of the Division Bench order, the application (No.99/2021) for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also disposed of as we have taken the matter on merits.

¶34

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶35

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶36

B.M. Gandhi/Rajat Kumar-41

The State of Rajasthan v. Ameer Chand Jain Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Rajasthan v. Ameer Chand Jain Son of Late Shri Mool Chand Jain

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

Sahi Lal Vishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Triveni Kumari W/O Mahesh Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Rafiq Mohammad S/O Late Shri Babu Khan

State of Rajasthan Vs Ramesh Goswami S/O Shri Sanjay Goswami