Allowed

D K Bhardwaj v. R S E B Jaipur

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2023CW/2804/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought the grant of selection scale benefits to a petitioner denied such benefits despite completing fifteen years of service, while junior employees received the benefit. The court held the denial illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 14, and directed the respondents to grant the benefit retrospectively from the date it was extended to juniors.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to allow selection scale w.e.f. 01.04.1993 with computed pay and 9% interest on arrears if not paid within four months.

D K Bhardwaj Vs R S E B Jaipur — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:36596]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2804/2000

¶4

D K Bhardwaj through his legal heirs

¶5

Shrimati Asha Bhardwaj wife of Late Shri D.K. Bhardwaj aged 67 years.

¶6

Neeraj Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri D.K. Bhardwaj aged 45 years.

¶7

Nitin Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri D.K. Bhardwaj aged 43 years. Applicants No.1 to 3 R/o 3, Keshav Path, Ashok Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur through its Secretary and another.

¶11

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Joshi Mr. R.C. Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jag Mohan Saxena Mr. H.C. Mauriya Mr. Rachit Sharma

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶15

Judgment / Order

¶16

29/11/2023

¶17

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to grant him benefit of selection scale on the post of Assistant Engineer on completion of fifteen years of his service as on 06.06.1991.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Diploma Holder) vide order dated 12.09.1963 and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 04.06.1976 and he joined on

[2023:RJ-JP:36596]

[CW-2804/2000]

(2 of 5)

promoted post on 06.06.1976. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has completed fifteen years of service on the post of Assistant Engineer on 06.06.1991. Counsel also submits that the respondents have issued an order dated 29.10.1984, so as to grant the benefit of selection scale to the Assistant Engineer (Diploma Holder) on completion of fifteen years of service w.e.f. 01.10.1984 and therefore, the petitioner who has completed fifteen years of services on the post of Assistant Engineer (Diploma Holder) on 06.06.1991, is entitled for grant of benefit of selection scale. Counsel further submits that the persons junior to the petitioner have already been given benefit of selection scale w.e.f. 01.04.1993 and the respondents have discriminated the petitioner by not allowing him the benefit of selection scale which is violative of petitioner’s right under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Counsel for the respondents submits that the benefit of selection scale was not allowed to the petitioner because at the relevant time, on the date the petitioner is claiming the benefit of selection scale, the number of vacancies were less than the persons who are entitled for benefit of selection scale. Counsel further submits that the Chairman of the Board has examined the case of the petitioner and it was the discretion of the Chairman to allow the benefits of selection scale or not. Counsel further submits that the persons junior to the petitioner who have been allowed the benefit of selection scale were allowed the said benefit, when the petitioner was already promoted on the post of Executive Engineer. The petitioner cannot say that the persons junior to him have been allowed the benefit of selection scale.

[2023:RJ-JP:36596]

[CW-2804/2000]

(3 of 5)

Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of selection scale with effect from the date the persons who were given the benefit of selection scale. Counsel also submits that since the basis of grant of benefit of selection scale, as per the order issued by the Department is seniority cum merit. Counsel submits that it was discretion of the Chairman to allow the benefit of selection scale to the persons working on the post of Assistant Engineer on the basis of their performance.

¶28

Considered the submissions made by counsels appearing for the respective parties and the material available on record. 5. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer and further his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was made vide order dated 04.06.1976 is not in dispute. Counsel for the respondents has also not disputed the fact that the respondent-Board has issued an order dated 29.10.1984 prescribing selection scale of Assistant Engineer (Diploma Holder) on completion of fifteen years of service. It is also not in dispute that some persons junior to the petitioner have been granted benefit of selection scale w.e.f. 01.04.1993, though after promotion of petitioner as Executive Engineer on 08.05.1994.

¶29

The main thrust of the counsel for the respondents is that initially when the petitioner completed fifteen years of service, there was no post available for the benefit of selection scale so that the petitioner could be granted benefit of selection scale in the year 1991, but the counsel for the respondents has not given satisfactory and valid answer of the query made by this Court that when the persons junior to the petitioners have been allowed benefit of selection scale w.e.f. 01.04.1993 then why the

[2023:RJ-JP:36596]

[CW-2804/2000]

(4 of 5)

petitioner has been left out. The only answer to the query given by the counsel appearing for the respondents is that the petitioner was allowed promotion on 08.05.1994 on the post of Executive Engineer and those persons junior to him who could not be granted promotion, were granted benefit of selection scale w.e.f. 01.04.1993.

¶34

This court is not convinced with the answer given by the counsel for respondents to the query made by this Court. If the persons junior to the petitioner have been allowed the benefit of selection scale w.e.f. 01.04.1993, then the petitioner also deserves to be granted the same benefit from the date when the persons junior to him have been extended the said benefit, though he may subsequently be promoted to the higher post. It is basic principle under service jurisprudence that the senior person cannot be denied the benefit which have been extended to the person junior to him without there being any reasonable clarification based on the provisions of relevant Service Rules.

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not hesitate to hold that the denial to the petitioner for grant of benefit of selection scale from the date when the persons junior to him have been granted the benefit is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶36

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶37

The petitioner is entitled for the benefit of selection scale after completion of fifteen years of service on the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 01.04.1993, when the persons junior to him have been extended the benefit of selection scale and the respondents

[2023:RJ-JP:36596]

[CW-2804/2000]

(5 of 5)

are directed to allow the benefit of selection scale to the petitioner w.e.f 01.04.1993 within two months from today and after making complete computation and revision of pay, the consequential benefits including arrears shall also be extended to the petitioner within next two months. If the actual benefit after computation and revision of the pay scale is not extended within four months from today, the petitioner would be entitled for nine percent (9%) interest on the arrears.

¶42

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶43

ARTI SHARMA /284

D K Bhardwaj v. R S E B Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D K Bhardwaj v. R S E B Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanchan Kumari Beniwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mahavir Singh Vs State Home Department Ors.

Shekhawati Technical Degree College Vs Rajasthan Ild Skills University

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Gopal Ram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr Baldev Verma Vs State of Raj and Ors.