Dismissed

Nandlal Bhati v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2023CW/5581/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting his representation against a recovery of Rs. 7,717 issued for receiving excess pay due to double counting of M.Ed. increment benefits. Court held that as the benefit of the higher qualification was already granted during pay revision, it could not be claimed twice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted Rs. 2060/- to the petitioner, dismissed, and dismissed, granted the petitioner's claim for relief.

Nandlal Bhati Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41325]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5581/2006

Nandlal Bhati

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shubham Ojha
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Kumar,Dy.G.C.

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Judgment

¶12

Reserved on 29/11/2023

¶13

Pronounced on 04/12/2023

¶14

The matter pertains to the year 2006, thus, was listed under the category “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

¶15

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶16

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that :-

¶17

a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed.

¶18

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order 09-02-2004 (Annx.-7) passed by the Deputy Director (Secondary) Education Department, Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be restored to Rs. 2060/- as he was drawing the said amount before passing of order dated 28-02-1998 (Annexure-6).

¶19

c) by an appropriate writ order or direction the petitioner be granted all other consequential benefit following from quashing of order dated 09-02-2004 (Annexure-7).

(2 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:41325]

[CW-5581/2006]

d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be be directed to refund the amount of recovery made in pursuance of the order dated 28.2.97 (Annexure6).

¶24

e) Any other appropriate writ order or direction 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.”

¶25

Brief facts of the case, as placed before by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade-III on 24.11.1975, and thereafter, was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade-II on 14.09.1978 and posted at Government Secondary School, Bisalpur.

¶26

3.1. The petitioner had passed his M.Ed. Examination on 02.06.1984. The respondents vide order dated 29.09.1998 granted higher pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 02.06.1984. Thereafter the respondents revised the pay scale from time to time and the petitioner was granted pay grade of Rs. 2000-3200 after completion of 9 years of services; the respondents vide order dated 06.10.1993 granted higher basic pay of Rs.2,060/- in the aforesaid grade to the petitioner.

¶27

3.2 Subsequently, the respondents vide order dated 28.02.1997, issued a recovery order to the tune of Rs.7,717/- from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had been wrongly granted the higher pay scale, and therefore, the pay scale was reduced from Rs. 2,060/- to Rs. 2,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3770/2002 before this Hon’ble Court, and the same was decided on 16.07.2003 with

[2023:RJ-JD:41325]

[CW-5581/2006]

(3 of 6)

a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondents, who in turn, were directed to decide the same. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner filed a representation and the same was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 09.02.2004.

¶32

3.3. Thus, aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2004, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents denied higher pay of Rs. 2060/- to the petitioner despite the fact that he was entitled to the same as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983, and also the whole impugned action of the respondents, is nothing but a misinterpretation of the provisions of the said Rules.

¶34

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents wrongly stated that the increment towards the qualification of M.Ed cannot be granted twice; the petitioner is a M.Ed Degree holder, and therefore, there is no question of increment given for once or more than once.

¶35

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents wrongly interpreted the provisions of law and because of the same, the junior person started getting higher salary than the other senior employees, including the present petitioner. It was further submitted that the respondents also rejected the representation of the petitioner on baseless grounds, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is not justified in law.

[2023:RJ-JD:41325]

[CW-5581/2006]

(4 of 6)

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in pursuance of notification dated 25.01.1992, the petitioner’s pay scale was fixed at Rs. 2000-3200/- and not at Rs. 2060/-. It was further submitted that the petitioner was granted an additional increment on acquiring the qualification of M.Ed, and therefore, the pay scale fixed at Rs. 2060/- was a wrong fixation of pay and the audit team also raised the objection, resulting into issuance of recovery notice towards excess payment to the petitioner.

¶40

5.1. It was also submitted that the petitioner’s pay was also fixed at Rs. 2000/- from 1900/- and he has been granted the benefits of Rs.100/- at time of fixation of his pay. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been granted the benefits in the form of one additional increment on acquiring the qualification of M.Ed. on 02.06.1984 and the same was merged, while making fixation of his pay at the time of revision of pay. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefits of one additional increment twice.

¶41

5.2. It was further submitted that in case of acquisition of M.Ed. or B.Ed., if any junior employee is granted one additional increment, then in that case, the senior employee is not entitled to be fixed at the said stage.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

¶43

This Court observes that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade-III and thereafter the petitioner was promoted to

(5 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:41325]

[CW-5581/2006]

the post of Teacher Grade-II. In furtherance, the petitioner had passed his M.Ed. Examination, whereafter the respondents revised the pay scale of the petitioner time to time and the respondents granted higher basic pay of Rs.2,060/- in the aforesaid grade to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondents issued the aforementioned recovery order and the pay scale of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.2,060/- to Rs. 2,000/-, whereupon the petitioner filed a representation, but the same was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order.

¶48

This Court further observes that after appointment of the petitioner on the post in question, the respondents revised his pay scale from time to time and the petitioner had also acquired the higher qualification; the respondents vide order dated 06.10.1993 granted higher basic pay of Rs. 2,060/- to the petitioner, despite the fact that initially, the respondents had already revised the pay scale from Rs. 1900/- to Rs. 2000/- on count of his acquiring the higher qualification.

¶49

This Court also observes that the once the benefit of the higher qualification was granted to the petitioner by the respondents by way of revision of the pay scale, then the same benefit cannot be granted twice to the petitioner. This Court further observes that the pay scale of Rs. 2000/- was already granted to the petitioner because of his M.Ed. Qualification. This Court is thus of the opinion that reduction in the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs. 2,060/- to Rs. 2,000/- is justified and sustained in the eye of law.

¶50

(6 of 6) [CW-5581/2006]

¶51

[2023:RJ-JD:41325]

¶52

Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.

¶53

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed . All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶54

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶55

SKant/-

Nandlal Bhati v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandlal Bhati v. State and Ors.

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

Suman Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaidev Vs State and Ors.

Yugal Kishore Bakolia Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Dev Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Payal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Lal Purohit Vs State and Ors.