G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the pay scale, which has been granted to him by virtue of Order dated 22nd July, 1982, Annexure-8 issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Branch, Ajmer. THE petitioner has made the following prayer: - (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direc-ting the respondents to fix the petitioner the Revised New Pay Scale of Rs. 370-10-410-15-530-20-590 prescribed w. e. f. 1. 9. 1976. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from fixing the petitioner in the grade of Rs 295-8-335-10-395-15-500 prescribed for the post of Mechanic Gr. II.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Writ Petition relates to the fixation of pay of the petitioner, who is a civil servant in the employment of the State of Rajasthan and this matter can be agitated by way of an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal of the State of Rajasthan. My attention has been invited to Section 2 sub-clause (f) of Rajasthan Civil Services Act, 1976, which defines the service matters. Sub-clause (f) of Section 2 reads as under:- ' 2 (f) 'service matters' means any one or more than one of the following matters relating to a government servant:- (i) Seniority; (ii) Promotion; (iii) Confirmation; (iv) Fixation of Pay; (v) An order denying or varying pay, allowance, pension and other service conditions, to the disadvantage of a government servant, otherwise than as a penalty. (vi) Cases or revision while officiating in a higher service, grade of post to lower service grade of post otherwise than as a penalty. Admittedly, according to the above definition the case of the petitioner is wholly covered by clause (iv) and (v ). According to the scheme and the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services Act, 1976 an appeal lies in respect of the service matter, which have been defined in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act. It is obvious and patent that in the instant case an appeal could have been and can be filed by the petitioner because the entire crux of the matter is regarding the fixation of pay or pay scales. Whether the order is for fixation of pay or denial of pay, allowances and other service conditions, an appeal can be preferred by a government servant before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel placed reliance on a case Purusottam Lal vs. Union of India (1) in which their Lordsnips of the Supreme Court have held that non-implemaention of the report of IInd Pay Commission in respect of certain government employees is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because there has been implementation of the revised pay scales in the particular category of service. As observed by their Lordships non implementation for particular persons who are similarly situated and implementation of others can certainly result in hostile discremination, in which Articles 14 and 16 or both can be invoked in a given case. However, since the question is only of implementation and grievance is against either non-implementation or wrong implementation, the petitioner can in either case challenge the order passed against him, successfully before the Tribunal, if a proper case is made out. The fact Articles 14 and 16 are violated can further strengthen his case for implementation or wrong implementation. But that alone cannot take out the service matter from the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal. I am convinced that the preliminary objection of the State is well sustained and it would be improper for this court to entertain the writ petition when there is positive clear, categorical, specific adequate, efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that Service Tribunal were constituted by specific Act of the Legislature in order to provide an appellate forum to the civil servants, who can legitimately make their grievances in respect of illegal, wrong or unjust order about their service conditions passed by the Government Officers and since remedy of appeal is more comprehensive wide and all questions can be considered by the Service Tribunal, because in some cases it is co-extensive, entertaining writ against the impugned order would be against the interest of a civil servant, instead of intertaining appeal by the Tribunal. This court entertains writ petitions where only limited questions can be canvassed about the jurisdictional issues. Moreover, the entertainment of writ petition directly without exhausting the remedy of the Service Tribunal would on the one side made the provision of this Act nugatory, on the other hand, it would result in avoidable flood of litigation. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition of the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage unless he exhausts his remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In the result the Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner can avail the efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Service Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner can move an application before the Tribunal for condonation of delay. It is expected that the question of limited would not come in his way, if the petitioner otherwise deserves any relief. . ;