Somdutt Sharma @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2/2/2016 (Annex.11) passed by the Financial Adviser, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur and a direction has been sought to the respondents to revise the pay/pension of the

petitioner as per the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989, 1998 and 2008.

The petitioner was serving as Sub-Inspector with the respondent Department when Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 (‘the Rules, 1989’) were introduced. Thereafter, on 20/11/1993 a

memorandum was issued providing for permission to the employees to exercise option or re-option under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1989 within two months from the date of publication of the order. It is claimed that the

petitioner gave his option, however, the revision was not permitted in terms of Rules, 1989. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31/8/1995. On 22/2/1997, the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh sent a

letter to the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar for redressing the grievance of the petitioner indicating that the petitioner had submitted his option on 24/12/1993 for revising his pay in the Pay Scale of 1400-2600.

Thereafter, despite petitioner’s repeated following-up with the Department, on 22/7/2015 Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh ordered for revision of the pay/pension of the petitioner according to the option

submitted by him pursuant to Rules of 1989, however, the Financial Adviser from whom the guidance was sought, by its communication dated 2/2/2016 opined that as per Rule 10(5) of the Rules, 1989 option once given

was final and as the revision has taken place under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998 and 2008 and prayer for option has been made after retirement, there was no justification for sending the option to the State

Government.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 2/2/2016 (Annex.11) is ex facie incorrect as it is based on assumption that the petitioner applied for submitting his option after retirement, whereas,

the petitioner had given his option during the course of his employment in the year 1993 itself, which is evident from the letter dated 22/2/1997 (Annex.6) and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

Further submissions have been made that the case of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent Department which is evident from the order dated 22/7/2015 (Annex.10), however, the Financial Adviser based on

wrong assumption has declined to send the same to the State Government, which is not justified in the circumstances of the case and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that reliance placed by the petitioner on communication dated 22/2/1997 (Annex.6) is misplaced inasmuch as the point of time

when the petitioner gave his option for revision, the office of Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh was not in existence as the same came into existence on 12/7/1995.

Further, submissions have been made that the original service book of petitioner was reported lost and duplicate whereof was prepared in the year 2006 as per official record and in the duplicate service book and in the

personal file of the petitioner there was no mention about submission of option letter by the petitioner and, therefore, as the petitioner had failed to give his option within the time permitted under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1989, he

has no cause in the present writ petition and same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The crucial letter dated 22/2/1997 reads as under:

“dk;kZy; ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd guqekux                                                                                      Â

                               fnukad %& 22-2-97

Jheku~ iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk JhxaxkuxjA

fo""k; %& Jh lksenr lsok fuo`r mi fujh{kd dk osru  fLFkjhdj.k ckcrA

izlax %& bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 200&203 fnukad 6-2-97Â Â o vkids i=kad 1128&35 fn- 13-2-97 ds lUnHkZÂ Â esA

egksn;]

mijksDr fo""k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS] fd vki }kjk mi fujh{kd

dk la’kksf/kr osru o`f) Lohd`fr vkns’k osru J`a[kyk 1160 ls 2360 esa dj fHktok;k x;k gSa tks dh lsok iqfLrdk ds i`""B la[;k 44 o la’kksf/kr vkns’k 46 ij fd;s x;s vkns’kksa esa fojks/kkHkk""k n’kkZ jgk

gS ftlls izrhr gksrk gS fd mi fujh{kd dk uohu osru J`a[kyk ¼1400&2600½ esa vkns’k

Lohd`r ugha fd;k x;k gSA

vr% iqu% fuosnu gS fd mDr lsok iqfLrdk dks u;s lhjs ls

tkap dj u;s osrueku ¼1989½ esa mi fujh{kd ds fodYi i= fnukad 2412-93 ¼ftl le; deZpkjh vkids ;gka rSukr Fkk½ tks dh lsok iqfLrdk esa pLik gS ds vuqlkj osru fLFkjhdj.k dj izdj.k fHktokus dh d`ik djsaA layXu %&

lsok iqfLrdk ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd guqekuxA bare perusal of the above letter would show that same has been written by the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh to Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar indicating that the option form dated 24/12/1993 which

is attached to the service book, and which was submitted at the time when the petitioner was serving under Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar, the salary may be fixed according to the same. The very fact that

Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh wrote a letter to Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar specifically indicating that the option form was given on 24/12/1993 when the petitioner was serving under him and that

option form was attached in the service book clearly negates the case of the respondents that letter dated 22/2/1997 cannot be relied on as office of the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh was not in existence in the

year 1993.

Once it was specifically indicated that the option form was submitted by the petitioner on 24/12/1993, his case could not have been rejected by the Financial Adviser on the non-existent ground that the prayer was made

after retirement as the petitioner had retired only on 31/8/1995. Further, once the respondent themselves vide Annex.10 have determined the revised pension of the petitioner, there was apparently no reason for passing the

order Annex.11 holding that there was no justification for sending the same to the State Government, specially in view of the fact that respondents in para 8 of the reply have admitted the genuineness of the letter dated

22/2/1997.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the order dated 2/2/2016 Annex.11 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to revise the pay/pension of the petitioner in terms of Rules of

1989 and subsequent Pay Scale Rules, 1998 and 2008 and make payment of the arrears to the petitioner. The said exercise may be undertaken by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy

of this order is placed before them.