Ram Chandra Meena vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dt. 28.3.12, whereby the petitioner''s entitlement for grant of third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service in terms of Government order dt. 25.1.92 has been deferred for a period of five years on account of five penalties of censure imposed upon him, which were already taken into consideration while deciding the petitioners entitlement for grant of second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service. The State Government issued an order dt. 25.1.02 providing for grant of selection grade to the employees holding the post in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Service and those holding isolated posts. As per clause 2 of the order, the employees are held entitled for first, second and third selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, provided they have not got one, two or three promotions respectively earlier. As per clause 3, the service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, is required to be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with provisions contained in the recruitment Rules. As per clause 7, selection grade in terms of the said order could be granted only to those employees whose service record is satisfactory. The said clause of the order further provides that the record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on seniority shall be considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of selection grade.

The petitioner who was initially appointed on the post of Sub Inspector on 24.3.84, completed 18 years of service in the year 2002, however, the grant of second selection grade was deferred for a period of five years on account of five penalties of censure imposed upon him by five different orders passed during the year 1998 to 2002. Accordingly, the second selection grade was granted to the petitioner vide order dt. 6.2.08 issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur w.e.f. 24.3.07. According to the petitioner, on completion of 27 years of service as on 24.3.11, he was entitled to be considered for grant of third selection grade, however, the same was denied vide order dt. 28.3.12 issued by the Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Rajasthan, Jaipur observing that in view of the memorandum dt. 31.12.09, the effect of the five penalties considered while granting second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service shall be taken into account while granting third selection grade as well and therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled for third selection grade w.e.f. 24.3.16. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the denial of third selection grade to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.3.11 on completion of 27 years of service on the basis of Government order dt. 31.12.09 is avowedly illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the said Government order, which is issued in respect of grant of Assured Career Progression to Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services Government Servants and those holding isolated posts under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 are not applicable in the matter of grant of selection grade in terms of Government order dt. 25.1.92. Learned counsel submitted that if the same are made applicable even in the matter of grant of selection grade in terms of the Government order dt. 25.1.92 then, Clause 2(11) of the Government order dt. 31.12.09, which provides that if financial upgradation in ACPS is deferred and not allowed due to reason of the employee being unfit or due to departmental proceeding etc., this would have consequential effect on the subsequent financial upgradation which would also get deferred to the extent of delay a grant of previous financial upgradation, deserves to be declared illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel, submitted that for the purpose of grant of selection grade, the record of service for a period of seven years, preceding the date of eligibility could only be taken into account and therefore, the record of service prior to 24.3.04 cannot be taken into account while considering the petitioners entitlement for grant of third selection grade w.e.f. 24.3.11 and therefore, the order impugned passed by the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Shankar Lal Parmar, , the Government order dt. 24.7.95 which stipulates that for the grant of selection grade in cases where an employee has earned a censure should not be treated either as an impediment or obstruction for consideration of his promotion but his case for such a grant would be deferred for a period of one year, has been held to be valid and therefore, the order impugned passed by the competent authority deferring the grant of third selection grade to the petitioner for the parity of the reasons for which the grant of second selection grade was deferred, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that as per Clause 2(11) of the Government order dt. 31.12.09, the consequential effect of the deferment of second selection grade to the petitioner on account of five penalties of censure imposed upon him, would be there on grant of third selection grade as well and therefore, the order impugned deferring the grant of third selection grade to the petitioner for a period of five years being in conformity with the Government decision governing the upgradation, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, the Government order dt. 25.1.92 providing for grant of first, second and third selection grade to the members of Class IV, Subordinate & Ministerial Service and the employees holding the isolated posts on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service has been issued with a view to extend the relief to the employees covered by the said order who are facing stagnancy in the service. As per clause 7 of the said Government order, the selection grade shall be granted only to those employees whose record of service is satisfactory. It is further provided that the record of service, which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered to be satisfactory for grant of selection grade. It is not disputed before this court that while considering the candidature for promotion to the higher post, the service record of preceding seven years is taken into consideration. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has completed 27 years of service as on 24.3.11 and it is not the case of the respondents that there is any adverse entry in the APAR of the petitioner on account of any penalty being imposed as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or otherwise. In this view of the matter, keeping in view the criteria laid down for grant of selection grade in terms of clause 7 of Government order dt. 25.1.92, the petitioner cannot be denied consideration for grant of selection grade on completion of 27 years of service and the penalties, of censure imposed, which relates to the period beyond seven years preceding the date of consideration, cannot be made basis for deferring the grant of selection grade to the petitioner for the number of years equivalent to the number of penalties.

Coming to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shanker Lal''s case (supra), it is to be noticed that in the said decision, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has upheld the Government order providing that earning of ensure would be a bar for an employee to be granted selection grade for one year in no manner, applies to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, the question with regard to the repeated denial of selection grade on the basis of one and the same penalty was not there before the Hon''ble Supreme Court for consideration. If a penalty imposed Cannot be taken into account while considering the candidature of an employee for promotion to the higher post then, obviously such penalty cannot be taken into account while considering a candidature of a candidate for grant of selection grade inasmuch as the criteria for grant of promotion and grant of selection grade to an employee on completion of number of years of service, is the same. Even otherwise, when the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit, an employee is entitled to be promoted to the higher post if he possesses minimum merits for the efficiency of service. That apart, the penalty of censure, which is a minor penalty, cannot be a ground for denying an employee promotion repeatedly when the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit. For the parity of reasons, the decision of the Government in deferring the grant of selection grade to an employee on the basis of penalty of censure repeatedly moreso when, the same does not forms part of the service record relevant for the purpose of consideration for promotion/grant of selection grade, cannot be countenanced by this Court. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dt. 28.3.12 issued by the Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jaipur deferring the grant of third selection grade to the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner''s entitlement for grant of selection grade afresh in terms of the Government order dt. 25.1.92 within a period of two months from the date of this order. On the selection grade being granted, the monetary benefits payable to the petitioner shall be paid within a period of one month thereafter. No order as to costs.