Allowed

Satya Narain v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2024CW/1308/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against withdrawal of second selection grade and ordered recovery from an employee absorbed in the Panchayat Raj Department. Following the co-ordinate Bench decision in Ashok Kumar involving a similarly situated counterpart, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order withdrawing second selection grade and directing recovery set aside with consequences; petition allowed in terms of Ashok Kumar judgment.

Satya Narain Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:281]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1308/2005

¶4

Satya Narain

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

	Versus
State And Ors.		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s)	:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶8

Order (Oral)

¶9

03/01/2024

¶10

Petition herein is directed against an order dated 21.12.2004 (Annex.4) passed by the Accounts Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur, vide which the second selection Grade granted to the petitioner on completion of 18 years of service was withdrawn. It was also ordered to cause recovery of the amount already paid to him by virtue of the earlier according of the selection grade.

¶11

Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.

¶12

2.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Nakedar in the Municipal Board, Nagaur. However, due to the abolition of the octroi duty, he was declared surplus. Subsequently, he was absorbed in the Panchayat Raj Department, in accordance with Rule 265, 270, and 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Rules of 1996, as per the circular dated 01.10.2001 (Annex.1). 2.2. The petitioner was posted in Panchayat Samiti, Nagaur on the post of Gram Sewak & Secretary, Gram Panchayat under

[2024:RJ-JD:281]

[CW-1308/2005]

(2 of 4)

Panchayat Samiti Nagaur vide an order dated 10.01.2003 (Annex. 2).

¶17

2.3. On completion of 9 years of satisfactory service, the petitioner was awarded First Selection Grade. Likewise, on completion of 18 years of service, the petitioner was granted Second Selection Grade vide an order dated 17.06.2004.

¶18

2.4. However, the second selection Grade granted to the petitioner on completion of 18 years of service was cancelled and vide impugned order dated 21.12.2004 (Annex.4), recovery of the amount already paid to him was also directed. Aggrieved, petitioner prefers this writ petition.

¶19

From the aforesaid narrative, it boils down that the controversy herein is centered around a very narrow compass i.e. whether the petitioner is entitled to selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service ?

¶20

Without further ado, it appears to be an open and shut case. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no more res-integra in view of judgment rendered in the case of a similarly situated counterpart of the petitioner namely Ashok Kumar. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6401/2011 titled as Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors held the action of the respondents as not sustainable. The relevant extract of the judgment, ibid is reproduced herein below:

¶21

“19. In view of the discussion above, in considered

¶22

opinion of this court, the petitioners absorption shall be governed by clause 2 of the circular dated 2.10.10 issued by the State Government and not by clause 5- Ga as sought to be clarified vide order dated 23.5.11. Thus, the clarification issued vide clause 3 of order dated 23.5.11 and the resolution adopted by the Zila Parishads, pursuant thereto, reviewing its earlier decision grating regular pay scale to the petitioners and

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:281]

[CW-1308/2005]

their likes from the date of their joining the duties on the post of Gram Sevak and deferring the benefit of regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak till they complete ten years of service on the post of Gram Sevak, are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶27

20. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Indisputably, the petitioners were regular employees of the Spinfed/Cotton Complex and they having been declared surplus were absorbed on the post of Gram Sevak pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government in conformity with the Rules of 1996 an the Rules of 1969 and therefore, on their absorption/appointment by transfer on the equated post of Gram Sevak in various Panchayati Raj Institutions, they have to be treated regular employees and since they are discharging the duties of the post of Gram Sevak, there is absolutely no reason as to why theys hould be denied the payment of salary in the regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak from the date of their initial appointment ignoring the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

¶28

21. In the result, the writ petitioner succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The guidelines laid down by the State Government clarifying the circular dated 02.10.10, as contained in clause 3 of the order dated 23.5.11 providing for the benefits regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak to the surplus employees of Spinfed/Cotton Complex absorbed/appointed by transfer on the post of Gram Sevak, on completion of ten years of service in terms of clause 5-Ga of circular dated 02.10.10 instead of from the date of their joining on the post in terms of clause 2 of the said circular dated02.10.10 is held to be illegal and quashed. Consequently the resolutions adopted by the District Establishment Committee/Zila Parishads in compliance of the clarification issued by the State and the orders issued pursuant thereto, withdrawing the regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak, already granted to the petitioners and directing recovery of the excess amount paid are also quashed. The orders issued by the Zila Parishad/Panchayat Samitees concerned extending the benefit of regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak to the petitioners with effect from the date of their joining the duties are restored. No order as to costs.”

¶29

I am in respectful agreement with the view held by the learned single Judge, as above. I see no reason as to why the benefit of the same be not accorded to the petitioner herein who

[2024:RJ-JD:281]

[CW-1308/2005]

(4 of 4)

concededly stands on the same footing as his counterpart in the above judgment.

¶34

The only difference being, that the petitioner had impugned the recovery order passed against him vide the instant writ petition, whereas, his counterpart in the above judgment chose to challenge the withdrawal/non grant of the selection grade subsequent to the causing of recovery.

¶35

Be that as it may, once the benefit of selection grade has been granted to the counterpart vide judgment, ibid, it is irrelevant whether recovery was caused or yet to be caused, as in the case of petitioner, by virtue of an interim stay granted by this Court. In fact, granting of interim protection is suggestive that there was prima facie case in favor of petitioner,

¶36

The petition is thus allowed in the same terms as the judgment in Ashok Kumar supra. The impugned order is set aside with consequences to follow.

¶37

(ARUN MONGA), J

¶38

72-divyaP/-

¶39

Whether fit for reporting - Yes / No

Satya Narain v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narain 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Raj. Ayurved University, Jodhpur

Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan

Nand Ram Vs State and Anr.

Mangi Lal Lohar Vs Maharana Pratap Uni.of Agri.and Tech.and Anr.

Dr.a.L.Pancholi Vs Raj.Vidyapeeth Deemed Uni. and Anr.