SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner herein only on the ground that the mistake committed at the leve of the Government, cannot be cured because it has no jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to pay scales.
(2.) SOME facts are not disputed and they are these. Up to the year 1971, the pay scale of Sadar Kanungo and Naib Teh-sildar were the same, the two posts were in the pay scale No. 13. The said two posts were inter-changeable. In other words Sadar Kanungo could be posted as Naib Tehsildar and Naib Tehsilbar could be posted as Sadar Kanungo. A One Man Committee in respect of pay scales of the Government servants was appointed and recommendations of the said Committee were considered by the Government and pay scales of Naib Tehsildar were changed w. e. f. 1st March 1973 as pay sclae No. 14-A from 180-l0-220-50-385-20-425to 200-50-350-20-450-25-525. But so far as pay scale of Sadar Kanungo which pay scale was as stated earlier the same as the pay scale of Naib Tehsildar was not changed. The Board of Revenue recommended the matter to the Government for equating the post of Sadar Kanungo with Naib Tehsildar but no decision was taken. The effect was that whereas Sadar Kanungo continued to draw the same scale of pay i. e. pay scale No. 13 but so far as Naib Tehsiidars are concerned, they were paid pay in pay scale no. I4-A. It was only by notification No. F2 (12) Rev/gr. 1v/ 83-3, dared 27. 1. 1984 vide GSR 90, Pub. in Raj. Gaz. Extra-ordinary Part IV -C (l), dated 31. 1. 1984 at page 374 w. e. f. 27. 1. 1984 that whole of the Rule 307 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 was substituted. Rule 307 provies that appointment to the post of Sadar Kanungo, shall be made from amongst the Naib Tehsildar and the post of Sadar Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar shall be equivalent and inter-changeable. Thus, by the aforesaid rule it was in the year 1984 that the earlier principle that the posts of Sadar Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar were inter-changeable was restored. The question is as to whether when till 1973 Sadar Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar were equivalant posts and were inter changeable and were treated as equals, what is the reason as to why lateron a deperture was made and different pay scales were provided for appointment of them there by treating them as unequals? The petitioner was posted as Sadar Kanungo in the year 1969 in the Colonisation Department and then in the year 1964 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Nawa. Thereafter, upto July 1971 he worked as Naib Tehsildar and was then posted as Sadar Kanungo Churu where he worked upto September 1971. In October 1971 he was again posted as Naib Tehsildar Churu by the Collector. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Tehsildar on 24th August 1979 and retired on 31st August 1979. It can, therefore, be said that upto the year 1973 the scales of pay of Sadar Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar were the same and posts were inter-changeable, but all of a sudden, may beunder the recommendations of the One Man Committes whereas the pay scale of Naib Tehsildar was given scale No. 14-A the pay scale of Sadar Kanungo was not changed and they continued to draw the earlier pay. If at a certain point of time, two posts are equivalent and holders of the posts are treated as equals, there must be some reason if thereafter departure is made and it will appear from the reply filed in the Tribunal as well as in this court that no good reason as to why departure in fixing the pay scales of Sadar Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar was made and none has been stated. Therefore we are of the opinion that once when the appointment on the posts of Sadar Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar was held to be on equivalent posts and were interchangeable and were treated as equals there is no reason as to why subsequently they could be treated as equals. So far as Annex. 1 dated 20th March 1973, the order of Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Rules) Department is concerned, a perusal of it will show that One Man Committee was appointed (1) to examine if posts carrying similar duties and responsibilities listing in different departments have been allowed different pay scales under the aforsaid rules and suggest if any, change in the pay scales prescribed for such posts is necessary, taking into consideration their duties and responsibilities and the qualification and experience prescribed for the post, (2) any specific matter that may be referred to the Committee by the Government and to make recommendations for removal of anamolies. The committee submitted it's report on the 30th November 1972, and after careful consideration of the recommendations of the committes, the Governor has been pleased to order that pay scales of certain categories of employees as shown in Schedule 1 appended to the order may be revised with effect from 1. 3. 73. To us it appears to be simple lapse or ommission that while examining the question of revision of pay scales of Naib Tehsildar the Committee or the Government failed to consider that the posts of Sadar Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar were interchangeable and channel of promotion to the post of Tehsildar was from those posts. It will also appear that the Committee was only appointed to examine the anamolies in case of different pay scales under the Rules. So far as Sadar Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar are concerned, they were fixed in the same pay scale and we are of the opinion that there being no reason to treat Sadar Kanungo differently from Naib Tehsildar when they were treated equals, the posts were inter-changeable and there was no justification to deprive a Sadar Kanungo to the pay scale in the scale of pay No. 14-A which was given to Naib Tehsildar. A look at the order of the tribunal will show that the post of Sadar Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar were inter-changeable even upto the year 1979, and the posts could only be inter-changeable even if they were in the same pay scale or were to carry identical duties and responsibility. The Tribunal has not said that the claim of the appellant before it was not justified but only dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not within its jurisdiction to correct the mistake of not providing the pay scale.
(3.) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that Sadar Kanungo were also entitled to be placed in pay scale No. 14-A which pay scale had been given to Naib Tehsildar order dated 20th March 1973. Consequently, we hereby allow this writ petition, setaside the order dated 20th March 1973 as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 14. 5. 1980 and the order of Board of Revenue 28. 5. 1979 and declare that Sadar Kanungo are also entitled to be placed in the pay scale No. 14-A which was being given to Naib Tehsildar. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result of this order, which benefits shall be given to him as soon as possible but in no case later than six months. Costs made easy. .;