LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for both the parties.
(2.) STATE of Rajasthan through Director of Technical Education has filed the above noted appeal against the order dated 20. 1. 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court. We have perused the entire pleadings and the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by this Court. This case has a checkered history. Respondent No. 2 Prakash Chand Verma was appointed as Instructor of English Stenography vide order dated 1. 1. 1975 on ad-hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 200-450. After some time in the year 1978 he was regularly appointed as Instructor English Stenography by an order dated 7. 9. 1978 in the grade of Rs. 500-890. In the year 1982 respondent No. 2 has filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which was duly registered as Case No. 78/82 with the prayer that the order dated 23/28. 1. 1982 be quashed and set aside and the appellant herein be ordered to fix the salary of the respondent No. 2 in the scale of Rs. 500-890 at Rs. 540/- w. e. f. 1. 9. 1976 and consequential increments and payments of arrear from 1. 9. 1976 to upto date with interest @ 12% per annum be allowed. On 23/28. 1. 1982 the Principal of I. T. I. , Ajmer on the basis of audit objections raised by the Accounts Officer vide his order dated 5. 10. 1979 ordered that the pay scale of Rs. 500-890 can not be allowed till the respondent No. 2 acquired five years' experience and pass afterwards one year in the same status. Respondent No. 2 filed the appeal against the order dated 23/28. 1. 1982 which was consequential order of letter dated 17. 1. 1979. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated 13. 3. 1985 by the Tribunal. Against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 13. 3. 1985, the respondent No. 2 preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1641/ 1985, which was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11. 5. 1999 by remanding the matter to the Service Tribunal quashing the order dated 13. 3. 1985, passed by the Tribunal, with the direction to treat the appeal filed in time and decide the same on merits within three months. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, decided the appeal vide order dated 3. 8. 1999 (Annex. 1 to the writ petition ). The Tribunal allowed the appeal with the direction to give the fixation of pay of respondent No. 2 in the pay scale of Rs. 500-890 and to fix at Rs. 540/- as basic pay w. e. f. 1. 9. 1976 with all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3. 8. 1999 passed by the Tribunal, the State Government filed a writ petition before this court as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 263/2000 praying to quash the order dated 3. 8. 1999 passed by the Tribunal, with the declaration that respondent No. is not entitled to get the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 500-890 w. e. f. 1. 9. 1976 and that the order dated 23/28. 1. 1982 is valid. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the State of Rajasthan and the respondent No. 2, passed an order on 20. 1. 2000. The learned Single Judge upheld the directions issued by the Service Tribunal. The present special appeal is against the said order dated 20. 1. 2000. According to Mr. A. K. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant-State, respondent No. 2 has not fulfilled the qualifications laid down for the post in question. The qualification laid down for the post is as under: " (a) Graduate from a recognised University. (b) Speed of 100 words per minute in English Stenography and 40 words per minute in English Typewriting. Actual speed test to be taken except in cases of those who have passed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission test of Grade-I Stenography. (c) Five years' experience as English Stenography in a Government Department or in a private firm. (d) Must be able to teach `short-hand' in "pitman's Short-Hand" and English Typewriting.
(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Bhargava, the respondent No. 2 has not satisfied the requirements of Clause - (C) above, namely, five years' experience as English Stenography in a Government Department or in a private Firm. It is the case of the appellant- State that respondent No. 2 has passed his three years' degree course in 1973, he studied as a regular student at least for three years to complete the three years degree course and passed his higher secondary examination in 1968. Therefore, from 1968 the respondent No. 2 must have completed three years in 1971, consequent upon, he should have been a regular student till 1971. However, the certificates submitted by respondent No. 2 only shows an experience as Stenographer from 7. 7. 1970 to 10. 7. 1973. Therefore, it is submitted that respondent No. 2 did not have the prescribed five years' experience and thus his initial appointment was incorrect and was not in accordance with the Rules and, as such, the scale allowed by the Service Tribunal is unreasonable and not permissible in the Rules. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submitted that the respondent has been indulged into a vexatious litigation by the State Government by filing writ petition and also this appeal. According to Mr. Gaur, respondent No. 2 was appointed on 1. 1. 1975 on temporary basis for a period of four months or till regularly selected candidates were made available. The answering respondent was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 200-450 and dearness allowance and other allowances which were admissible to Government Servants were to be given. In his reply, respondent No. 2 has reproduced the appointment order which is in Hindi and we have perused the same. The Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1976, came into force w. e. f. 1. 9. 1976. The respondent No. 2 had completed one year's of service as such, he was entitled for one increment and he was drawing pay of Rs. 215/- after granting him one grade increment. It is submitted that Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, provides for annual increment. Annual increment is ordinarily drawn until it is withheld by the authorities empowered to withheld such increment in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CCA Rules. In the instant case, respondent No. 2 was treated as a government servant and on completion of one year he was given one grade increment and as such on revision of pay scale, he was entitled to be fixed in pay scale of Rs. 500-890 and he should have been fixed at Rs. 540 on 1. 9. 1976. It is also brought to our notice that several temporary persons have been given their increment and fixed in revised pay scale also from time to time. Respondent No. 2 has also furnished the names of the persons who are serving on temporary basis yet they have been given benefit of revised pay scale. he has filed an order dated 3. 9. 1997 containing the names of persons whose term of appointment has been extended from time to time. Though the benefit has been extended from time to time to other temporary employees, yet the same benefit has not been extended to the respondent which amounts to hostile discrimination. ;