Allowed

Abdul Majid v. State Home Department Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2023CW/14237/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed respondent department to grant petitioner benefit of third selection scale w.e.f. 18.04.2011, ruling that expired effect of 1994 censure could not extend the scale period beyond what was mandated by 2001 punishments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to grant benefit of third selection scale to petitioner w.e.f. 18.04.2011 along with consequential benefits.

Abdul Majid Vs State Home Department Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14237/2011

¶3

Abdul Majid Son Of Shri Amir Mohd., Belt No. 1054, Village Gagwana, P.s. Gaigal, District Ajmer

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶7

Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer

¶9

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neetu Bhansali for Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Naruka for Mr. Rupin Kala, GC

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

07/08/2023

¶13

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶14

following prayer:

¶15

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and be further pleased to direct the respondent Department to grant the benefit of third selection grade with effect from 18.04.2008 to the petitioner and be further pleased to grant all consequential benefits i.e. arrears of salary, allowances, and other benefits with interest.

¶16

Any other writ, order or relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

¶18

was appointed on the post of Constable on 18.04.1981. Counsel

¶19

(2 of 4) [CW-14237/2011]

¶20

submits that on completion of 9 years of service the benefit of first selection scale was granted to him on 18.04.1990. Counsel submits that punishment of censure was awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 31.12.1994 and considering the effect of the aforesaid punishment benefit of second selection scale was granted to the petitioner in the year 1999. Counsel submits that vide order dated 23.06.2001 punishment of censure was passed against the petitioner and subsequently another punishment order was passed against the petitioner on 31.12.2001 by which two annual increments with cumulative effect were ordered to be withheld. Counsel submits that after adding these two punishments, the respondents would have extended the benefit of third selection scale for three years which became due on 18.04.2008. Counsel submits that it is the admission on behalf of the respondents themselves that the petitioner was entitled for benefit of third selection scale w.e.f. 18.04.2011. Counsel submits that without any justified reason the benefit of third selection scale was extended till 18.04.2012. Counsel further submits that effect of the first censure order dated 31.12.1994 came into an end in the year 1995 and accordingly the benefit of second selection scale was extended to the petitioner in the year 1999. Counsel submits that under these circumstances the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of third selection scale w.e.f. 18.04.2011, so appropriate directions be issued to the respondents in this regard.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in all three punishments were awarded to the petitioner and in the year 1994 the first censure order was passed

¶22

[CW-14237/2011]

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

against him, thereafter again he was awarded with the same penalty on 23.06.2001 and this time again censure order was passed against him. Counsel submits that on 31.12.2001 the third penalty was imposed against the petitioner by which the two annual increments were withheld with cumulative effect. In view of the above three penalties the benefit of third selection scale was extended for four years, hence the respondents have not committed an error in doing so. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Shankar Lal Parmar reported in 2011 (14) SCC 235. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the petition is liable to the dismissed.

¶25

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

¶26

Admittedly the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 18.04.1981. This fact is not in dispute that the punishment of censure was passed against him on 31.12.1994 and thereafter the benefit of second selection scale was extended to him on 18.04.1999. The third selection scale of the petitioner became due on 18.04.2008 but in between two further punishment order were passed against the petitioner i.e. on 23.06.2001 by which again a censure order was passed against him and second punishment order was passed on 31.12.2001 by which two annual increments were withheld with cumulative effect.

¶27

Now the question which remains for adjudication of this Court is whether the effect of the first punishment order i.e. dated

¶28

[CW-14237/2011]

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

31.12.1994 would have any effect upon the third selection scale of the petitioner or not.

¶31

It is worthy to note here that when the first punishment order was passed against the petitioner on 31.12.1994 the effect of the same has come to an end when the benefit of second selection scale was extended to the petitioner in the year 1999. Now at the time of granting third selection scale the respondents have no authority to extend the period for one year for the punishment order passed against the petitioner in the year 1994. The respondents would have extended the benefit of third selection scale to the petitioner only on the basis of the two punishment orders i.e. 23.06.2001 and 31.12.2001.

¶32

In view of above, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of third selection scale after expiry of the effect of above two punishment orders. Meaning thereby, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of third selection scale w.e.f. 18.04.2011. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant benefit of third selection scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 18.04.2011.

¶33

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶35

KuD/140

Abdul Majid v. State Home Department Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Majid v. State Home Department Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Uma Khandelwal W/O Shri Vishnu Prakash Khandelwal Vs Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan

Dhoomi Ram Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Narendra Kumar Sharma S/O Late Shri Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Anuja Yadav Daughter of Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramadevi Gurjar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Gopal Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.