KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THE second appeal before me arises out of a suit by the respondent questioning the validity of a Government order by which the order of fixation of the respondent's salary was superseded. The plaintiff had sought the relief for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,85852 paise wrongly deducted from his salary.
(2.) THE appeal involves a question regarding the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Unifications of Pay Scales) Rules, 1950 read in conjunction with the Schedule appended to the Rules. Khem Chand, plaintiff -respondent was an Auditor in the Office of the Accountant General of erstwhile Bikaner State. After the formation of Rajasthan be come to be posted as a Treasury Accountant with effect from 1.10.1949 in the grade of Rs. 100 -6 -130 10 200 vide Ex. 3 At the relevant time the Office of the Accountant General. Rajasthan was under the Government of the United State of Rajasthan. When there was Federal Financial Integration the office of the Accountant General came under the Auditor General of India. Then there was bifurcation of the services. The personnel who remained under the State Government were dealt with according to the integration procedure. On 10 -5 -54 the Rajpramukh sanctioned the set up of Accountants vide Ex. 4. According to this order 76 permanent posts were sanctioned along with 17 temporary posts in the cadre of Accountants. Thereafter a departmental examination was held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in December, 1954 for confirming the Accountants. The plaintiff respondent had passed the examination and accordingly he was made substantive Accountant with effect from 10 -5 -54 vide order Ex. 5. The grade of Accountants in the integrated set up was Rs. 150 -10 -250. Thereafter the question of the fixation of the salary of the plaintiff -respondent was taken up and be was allowed to draw Rs. 5,858 52 paise as arrears of his salary. The plaintiff was allowed the (salary in the grade of Rs. 150 10 220 -E8 10 -250 with effect from 1 -4 -50. It appears that subsequently a different opinion was taken regarding this fixation. The plaintiff was told that his fixation in the integrated set up with effect from 1 -4 -50 was not in order and, therefore, he should refund the arrears of salary that had been drawn by him. The amount was then recovered from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit in the court of the Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, challenging the order changing his date for the salary from 1.4.50 to 10.5.54.
(3.) THE suit was contested by the State of Rajasthan. The stand taken by the State was that as the posts of Accountants came into existence from 10 -5 -54 only vide Government order Ex. 4, the plaintiff was not entitled to draw the salary in this grade from any earlier date.;