STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SURENDRA MOHNOT
LAWS(SC)-2014-6-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
June 30,2014
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
Surendra Mohnot
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE VS. MALLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE [REFERRED TO]SHIVDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA VS. ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS INDIA LIMITED VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HIRA LAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM GANESH TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
B S BAJWA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. HARYANA VETERNATY AND A H T S ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PANJAB VS. GURDEEP KUMAR UPPAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PANJAB VS. ISHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. DOSU AARDESHIR BHIWANDIWALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. JAGDISH NARAIN CHATURVEDI [REFERRED TO]
O P SHARMA VS. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAHUL KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-6-4] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER VS. ALL ASSAM SECONDARY ADDITIONAL (CONTRACTUAL)TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-11-101] [REFERRED TO]
NEPAL DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2022-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
VANKAR JAYESHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-47] [REFERRED]
SHERVANI ZAKIRA KHANAM AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD JAHAN BEGUM & ANR VS. BOARD OF REVENUE, U P ALLAHABAD & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-223] [REFERRED]
VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
LIC OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR CHAND VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
MR. NAR BAHADUR KHATIWADA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2017-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNIKANT VS. SECRETARY TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-9-161] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HYDRO POWER CORPORATION (NHPC) VS. SRI KIRI DINI BOGUM [LAWS(GAU)-2019-1-89] [REFERRED TO]
PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. VS. NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO INDUSTRIE LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-5-147] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (O&M) MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. & ORS VS. NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO INDUSTRIE LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-5-643] [REFERRED TO]
P SEKAR VS. R GUNASEKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-305] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-309] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJ VS. CHANDRA RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR AND ORS. VS. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAVISH RATHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2024-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
TILOKA S/O HARJI RAM VS. SECRETARY, RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD, JAIPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-10-135] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY (FERTILIZERS), MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS, DEPARTMENT OF FERTILIZERS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI VS. PROSANTA KUMAR RAY, S/O SHRI MOHAN LAL RAY, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 54B, POCKET [LAWS(PAT)-2016-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
DEEP SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-7-187] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. VICKY KUMAR PATEL [LAWS(GAU)-2020-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN ANANDRAO PAWAR VS. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, IRB KOLHAPUR INTEGRATED ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-131] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-197] [REFERRED]
MANAGING COMMITTEE, K.D. JAIN VS. MAMTA GANGWAL W/O SH. PRAVEEN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH SINGH VS. OM TRIJUG NARAYAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
JHARKHAND BHOODAN KARMCHARI SANGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-9-164] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. PUSHPA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2016-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
THE MARATHWADA LEGAL AND GENERAL VS. VARSHA MANOHAR DHONGADE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
HERO ELECTRIC VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. LECTRO E-MOBILITY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SMT. MEENA A. KUWALEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2016-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
S. JOSEPH RAJ VS. P.K. MISRA THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SAIYAD GHAZANAFAR ISHTIAQUE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-182] [REFERRED TO]
LAL BAHADUR GAUTAM VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(SC)-2019-5-93] [REFERRED TO]
KANTILAL JIVABHAI PATEL SINCE DECD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-237] [REFERRED]
CHAMPA DEVI VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-116] [REFERRED TO]
CHET RAM & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-178] [REFERRED TO]
HARIPRAKASH SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were appointed on ad hoc basis as Lower Division Clerks either directly or from amongst the class IV employees for a fixed tenure for smooth functioning of administrative work. The nature of appointments are clear from the appointment orders dated 26.6.1986, 5.7.1986 and 25.10.1986. Respondent No. 7 was appointed on similar conditions in January, 1998. On 28.4.1993, the respondents appeared in the requisite testand, accordingly, were regularized on the posts of Lower Division Clerk by order dated 28.4.1993.
(3.)On 25.1.1992, the State of Rajasthan issued a circular which pertained to prescription of Selection Grades for employees in Class IV, Ministerial and subordinate services and those holding isolated posts and fixation of pay in Selection Grades. The circular was made applicable to certain categories of employees and it also prescribed the period. Paragraph 2 of the circular stipulated that (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 granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of eighteen years, provided that the employees has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first Selection Grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000; and (iii) the third Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes services of twenty seven years, provided that the employee has not got three promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first or the second Selection Grade granted to him as the case may be was lower than the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. Paragraph 3 provided that the service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, would be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules. It is apt to note here that the circular postulated certain other conditions which are as follows: -
"7. Selection Grades in terms of this order shall be granted only to these employees whose record for service is satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered to the satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the selection.
8. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing paragraphs, if an employee forgoes promotion on issue of order to this effect he shall not be granted second or third selection grade under this order.
9. Grant of selection Grade shall not effect the seniority in the cadre not the sanctioned strength of each category of posts in the cadre.
10. If an eligible employee becomes entitled to second or third selection grade straightway in terms of this order, his pay would be fixed directly in the second or third selection grade as the case may be with reference to pay being drawn immediately before grant of the second or third selection grade."
(2.)Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were appointed on ad hoc basis as Lower Division Clerks either directly or from amongst the class IV employees for a fixed tenure for smooth functioning of administrative work. The nature of appointments are clear from the appointment orders dated 26.6.1986, 5.7.1986 and 25.10.1986. Respondent No. 7 was appointed on similar conditions in January, 1998. On 28.4.1993, the respondents appeared in the requisite testand, accordingly, were regularized on the posts of Lower Division Clerk by order dated 28.4.1993.
(3.)On 25.1.1992, the State of Rajasthan issued a circular which pertained to prescription of Selection Grades for employees in Class IV, Ministerial and subordinate services and those holding isolated posts and fixation of pay in Selection Grades. The circular was made applicable to certain categories of employees and it also prescribed the period. Paragraph 2 of the circular stipulated that (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 granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of eighteen years, provided that the employees has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first Selection Grade granted to him was lower than the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000; and (iii) the third Selection Grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes services of twenty seven years, provided that the employee has not got three promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre and the first or the second Selection Grade granted to him as the case may be was lower than the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. Paragraph 3 provided that the service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, would be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules. It is apt to note here that the circular postulated certain other conditions which are as follows: -
"7. Selection Grades in terms of this order shall be granted only to these employees whose record for service is satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered to the satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the selection.
8. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing paragraphs, if an employee forgoes promotion on issue of order to this effect he shall not be granted second or third selection grade under this order.
9. Grant of selection Grade shall not effect the seniority in the cadre not the sanctioned strength of each category of posts in the cadre.
10. If an eligible employee becomes entitled to second or third selection grade straightway in terms of this order, his pay would be fixed directly in the second or third selection grade as the case may be with reference to pay being drawn immediately before grant of the second or third selection grade."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.