AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant - State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.1.2017, passed by learned Single Judge whereby the
writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed. By way of the order impugned, the respondent has been held entitled for second selection scale
w.e.f. 5.5.1996 and third selection scale w.e.f. 1.5.1998 (without any deferment).
The facts appertain to the present appeal, stated in a nutshell are that the writ petitioner â€" respondent herein, filed a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the State to grant second and third selection grade on completion of 18 and 27 years of service from
the date of his initial appointment.Â
The respondent appointed substantively on the post of Forest Guard on 01.05.1971, was however confirmed on 29.02.1980. Later on he had been
punished by the department vide order dated 19.11.1998, for which the benefits of second and third selection grade were deferred for a period of
seven years and the same were given w.e.f. 25.01.2005 vide order dated 16.11.2006.Â
The stand of the State before the learned Single Judge was that the employee became entitled to and thus was granted second selection grade on
completion of seven years from the date of penalty order; and similarly third selection grade was available after nine years of service from the date of
grant of second selection scale. In other words, according to the State, both the selection scales were to be deferred for a period of seven years, as
the petitioner had been punished in disciplinary proceedings.
Learned Single Judge repelled the stand of the State and held that the deferment of even third selection scale for a period of seven years was illegal
and contrary to the judgment of this Court rendered in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kuldeep Singh Chouhan & Ors., reported in RLW 1998 (2) Raj.
p.816.
Having recorded this finding, learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and held him entitled for second selection scale w.e.f.
5.5.1996 i.e. after a period of seven years from the date of passing of the penalty order (5.5.1989). Learned Single Judge has further held the
respondent entitled for third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 01.05.1998.Â
Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the judgment of learned Single Judge firstly tried to set up an entirely new case by arguing that the
respondent employee would be entitled for grant of second and third selection grade from 29.08.1980, the date when he was confirmed. In support of
such contention he submitted that there are catena of decisions holding that the selection grade shall be payable on completion of 9/18/27 years of
service from the date of regularisation and service rendered as adhoc or temporary basis are not to be counted.
It is pertinent to note that neither it had been a case set up before the learned Single Judge nor any such ground has been raised in the memo of
appeal. Be that as it may, even if this argument advanced by the appellant is considered, the same is fallacious inasmuch as the office order dated
29.2.1980 is simply an order of confirmation of the services of the respondent employee.
We have perused the appointment order dated 30.04.1971, produced by the appellant, which shows that the respondent employee had been duly
appointed in a regular cadre on a sanctioned post, after undergoing the selection process. The appointment of the respondent employee was not ad-
hoc or irregular and as such there is no question of regularization of his services. The fact that he had been confirmed on 29.02.1980, hardly has any
bearing in the present case. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the period prior to 29.02.1980 cannot be considered for
grant of selection grade, is factually incorrect on the one hand and misconceived on the other. As per the circular the employee is entitled for the
selection grade on completion of 9/18/27 years and that is to be reckoned from the date of appointment, albeit, a regular appointment in accordance
with the recruitment rules.
With a view to adjudge the correctness of the finding recorded by learned Single Judge to the effect that grant of third selection scale cannot be
deferred again for seven years, it would be apt to have a look at the circular dated 25.1.1992, placed for perusal by learned counsel for the respondent,
the relevant portion whereof is being reproduced hereunder :-
“2. (i) The first selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of nine years, provided that the
employee has not got one promotion earlier as is available in his existing cadre.
(ii) The second selection grade shall be grantedfrom the day following the day on which one completes services of eighteen years, provided that the
employee has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first selections grade granted to him was lower than the
pay scale of Rs.2200-4000.
(iii) The third selection grade shall be granted from the day on which one completes service of twenty seven years, provided that the employee has not
got three promotions earlier as first or the second selection grade granted to him, as the case may be was lower than the pay scales of Rs.2200-4000.
(3) The service of nine, eighteen or twenty seven years, as the case may be shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing
cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment Rules.â€
A perusal of the above underlined portion of the circular, being the fountain-head for grant of selection grades, reveals that an employee becomes
entitled for the selection grade on completion of nine years of service; second selection scale on completion of 18 years of service; and similarly for
third selection scale, on completion of 27 years of service.Â
In view of the unequivocal language contained in the circular, the respondent employee was legally entitled for grant of third selection scale on
completion of 27 years of service, notwithstanding the fact that his second selection scale was deferred for 7 years, in wake of the order of
punishment dated 05.05.1989.
The stance of the appellants that second selection grade is to be given after receiving first selection scale for 9 years and/or third selection scale can
be granted only after receiving second selection scale for another 9 years is a complete misreading of the Circular. The terminus quo in each case is
undoubted by the date of appointment.
As such learned single judge was perfectly justified in holding that the employee is entitled to second selection grade w.e.f. 05.05.1996 and third
selection grade w.e.f. 01.05.1998.
We do not find any substance in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.