At, High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
For the Appellants: Girish Sankhla, Advocate. For the Respondents: V.R. Mehta, AGC, S.R. Paliwal, AGC, Preety Keshwani, Bheemkant Vyas, Pramendra Bohra, Daulat Singh, B.S. Sandhu, Advocates.
1. By the judgments impugned dated 26.02.2014, 20.02.2014 & 4.12.2014, the learned Single Bench while accepting the writ petitions directed the appellants-respondents to allow selection grades to the petitioners-respondents on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service as per Government of Rajasthan's notification dated 25.01.1992 as modified from time to time.
2. In appeals, the argument advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the notification dated 25.01.1992 pertains to the employees of the Government of Rajasthan in its subordinate Ministerial and Class-IV cadre of service.
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he respondents-petitioners are not the employees of the Government of Rajasthan and as such, the notification aforesaid is having no application qua them.3. In brief facts of the case are that the appellant Rajasthan State Social Welfare Advisory Board is an establishment created by the Government of India for executing certain social welfare projects. Appointments on different posts in the board were made either on contractual posts either on consolidated salary or in regular pay scales. The appointments given were coterminus to the social welfare schemes. The projects within the jurisdiction and control of the board came to be closed on 01.04.2005 and as such, the respondents-petitioners became surplus. However, looking to their length of service, they were kept in service with the social welfare projects within the control of the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioners-respondents while on deputation with the projects under the control of the Government of Rajasthan claimed selection grade as per the Government of Rajasthan's notification dated 25.01.1992 and its successor notification dated 17.04.1998. On denial of the same, they approached this court by way of filing petitions for writ.4. The writ petition preferred by a similarly situated employee Saraswati Sharma came to be accepted by Single Bench of this court on 07.01.2005. The order passed by learned Single Bench was affirmed by Division Bench on 03.07.2008. A Special Leave Petition preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also came to be rejected under an order dated 04.05.2009.5. Pertinent to notice here that in the case of Saraswati Sharma (supra), the Single Bench of this court moved with assumption as if the employee concerned was employee of the Government of Rajasthan. The Single Bench also applied the notification dated 25.01.1992 qua the employee concerned on the count that revision of pay scale was applied for her in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1989"). The question about establishment of the appellant board, its jurisdiction and control of the Government of Rajasthan over it was not at all examined in the case of Saraswati Sharma. Before Division Bench too, the appeal came to be dismissed without examination of this issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition by arriving at the conclusion that before the Division Bench, the order passed was an outcome of an agreement. The Hon'ble Apex Court, however, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition left it open for the appellant to prefer an application to recall the order passed by the Division Bench.6. Be that as it may, before us, it is emphatically submitted that the respondents-petitioners are neither employees of the Government of Rajasthan nor the appellant ever adopted the notification dated 25.01.1992. According to learned counsel, merely grant of pay scales akin to the pay scales provided under the Rules of 1989 does not change nature of employment of the respondents-petitioners. Per contra, as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-petitioners, entire issue involved in this appeal has already been examined in the case of Saraswati Sharma, therefore, the respondents-petitioners who stood on the same pedestal cannot be distinguished with the case of Saraswati Sharma (supra) for grant of selection scale. Learned counsel, however, accept that the respondents-petitioners were not the employees of the Government of Rajasthan.7. Heard learned counsels.8. It is not in dispute that the appellant board was created by the Government of India for execution of certain social welfare projects sponsored by it. The board never remained under the control of the Government of Rajasthan or any of its agency or instrumentality. The board applied revised pay scales for its employees by adopting the Rules of 1989, but not due to application of the Rules of 1989 ipse-dixit.9. So far as the notification dated 25.01.1992 and its successor notification dated 17.04.1998 are concerned, those are having application for the employees of the Government of Rajasthan belonging to Subordinate/Ministerial/Class-IV cadre services. The respondents-petitioners are neither employees of the Government of Rajasthan nor they are in any of the cadre of the Government of Rajasthan services as referred above. In view of it, selection grades as per the notifications dated 25.01.1992 and 17.04.1998 could not have been granted to them. So far as the case of Saraswati Sharma (Supra) is concerned, we are of the concerned opinion that same is perincurium in view of the fact that the court while examining the claim of the employee concerned did not examine the issue with regard to applicability of the notification dated 25.01.1992 upon a person who is not in the employment of the Government of Rajasthan. At the cost of repetition, we would like to mention that the appellant board never adopted the notification dated 25.01.1992 though the pay scales prescribed under the Rules of 1989 were adopted and applied.10. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the considered opinion that selection grade allowed to the respondents-petitioners in the light of the notification dated 25.01.1992 is erroneous and as such, the learned Single Bench erred while accepting the writ petitions preferred by the respondents-petitioners. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgments passed by learned Single Bench are set aside.No order as to costs.Appeal allowed.