- (1.) THE controversy involved in the present case is that the petitioner Ex.Junior Technical Assistant (JTA) working in the respondent � Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur claimed benefit of Selection Scale on completion of 9-18-27 years of his service under the Notification dated 25.01.1992 and similar benefit also under another Notification dated 02.12.1998 on completion of 8-10 years of service.
(2.) THE respondents have submitted that the benefit of both the Scales cannot be availed by the petitioner and it would be relevant to notice their contentions as mentioned in paras 7, 8 and 9 of their reply, which are reproduced as under: "7. In reply to contents of Para 8, it is humbly submitted that prior to order Annex.4 dated 02.12.1998, the University employees were allowed benefit of the Scheme of 9, 18 and 27 years' service and therefore petitioner's salary was fixed in the pay scale of 6500-10500 on completion of 18 years' service. 8. In reply to contents of Para 9, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was allowed and fixed in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 on completion of 18 years of service after submitting the option form whereas as per rules, the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 is entitled on completion of 8 years' service. 9. In reply to contents of Para 10, it is humbly submitted that the payment was not fixed as averred by humble respondent No.3 but was fixed by the Dean of Commerce College which was approved by the Senior Accounts Officer, which was not correct as per law. The petitioner submitted an undertaking that if his fixation was not found in accordance with law, the excess payment received by him was recoverable. In other words, it is humbly submitted that the fixation was neither in accordance with law nor by an authorized persons." Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in principle agreed that of-course benefit of both the scales cannot be availed by the petitioner, but one of the scale benefits which was due to him, deserved to be given. This proposition, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. G.R. Punia also does not oppose. Therefore, it remains a mathematical calculation of the benefit due and to be paid to the petitioner as per his option under one of Notification dated 25.01.1992 or other under Notification dated 02.12.1998. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate representation giving his option to avail benefit under one of these Notifications and the respondent No.1 � the Registrar of Mohal Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur � the authority competent to decide such representation, shall decide the same after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today.
(3.) UPON such representation, the resultant benefits available to the petitioner after recovery of all the benefits availed by him under the other Notification, shall be adjusted and the consequential benefits, if any, while remains to be paid to the petitioner. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.;