- (1.) THESE matters pertain to grant/refusal of selection scales to the petitioners working in different Government Departments in pursuance of Notification dtd.25.1.1992. There cases are listed today before this Court for disposal in the spirit of Lok Adalat.
(2.) THE issue involved in the present writ petitions is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in (2009) 12 SCC 49 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court resolving the controversy with regard to the grant of selection grades, has held that the benefit of selection grade can be given only from the date of regular appointment and not from the date of initial/adhoc appointment. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is quoted herein below for ready reference: - ''Appellant Government framed a scheme for grant of stagnation benefits to those employees who had rendered, 9, 18 and 27 years of service. G.O. dated 25.1.1992 issued by the appellant Government in this regard used the expression ''appointment in the existing cadre/service ''. The word ''regular '' was not used before this expression but the position regarding regular service was clarified in subsequent G.O. dated 17.2.1998. Respondent employees who had initially been appointed on ad hoc, daily wages and work -charged basis contended that length of service in their cases should be counted from the date of their initial appointment and not from the dates of their regularisation because the express ''appointment in the existing cadre/service '' was not qualified by the word ''regular '' in G.O. dated 25.1.1992. High Court accepted this contention. Reversing the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held: 18. In order to become ''a member of service '' a candidate must satisfy four conditions, namely, (i) the appointment must be in a substantive capacity; (ii) to a post in the service i.e. in a substantive vacancy, (iii) made according to rules; (iv) ithin the quota prescribed for the source. Ad hoc appointment is always to a post but not to a cadre/service and is also not made in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules for regular appointment. '' Promotion has to be from the existing cadre in service. Ad hoc appointments are not made in terms of rules. In case of ad hoc employees, stagnation is till regularisation is made. The stress in the present case is on regular appointment to cadre/service. The question of promotion arises only when appointment is a regular appointment. Appointment to the post is not relevant; on the other hand, what is relevant is the period relatable to cadre of the service. While reckoning the required length of service, the period of ad hoc service has to be exluded. The High Court failed to appreciate that the recruitment rules made a distinction between appointments made to the cadre/service in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules which are regular and appointments made de hors the regular Recruitment Rules which are ad hoc. Although the adjective ''regular '' was not used before the words ''appointment in the existing cadre/service '' in para 3 of the G.O. dated 25.1.1992 which provided for selection pay scale, the appointment mentioned there is obviously a need for regular appointment made in accordance with the recruitment rules. What was implicit in the said paragraph of the G.O when it refers to appointment to a cadre/service has been made explicit by the clarification dated 3.4.1993 given in respect of point No. 2. The same has been incorporated in para 3 of the G.O. dated 17.2.1998. '' The Division Bench decision of this Court following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) decided the intra -court appeal filed by the State being DBSAW No.382/2013 -State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Karan Singh along -with 16 connected intra -court appeals, decided on 25.03.2014 headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, has held as under: - ''The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) on the same issue arising from the circular dated 25.1.1992 and noticing that the respondents -employees therein had been initially appointed on adhoc, daily wages and work charged basis held that till their services were not regularized, they were not borne on a cadre and therefore, their services rendered prior to regularization could not be counted for eligibility for stagnation benefits. It was clarified that though the word ''regular '' was not used in the circular dated 25.1.1992, the appointment contemplated was obviously regular in nature and made in accordance with the recruitment Rules. The clear exposition of law that was thus recorded in the above decision is that services rendered on adhoc, daily wages and work charged basis cannot count to determine the eligibility for stagnation benefits comprehended and prescribed by the circular dated 25.1.1992. Admittedly, after this decision was rendered, the State Government vide its orders dated 29.6.2009 and 20.8.2010 did take a decision not to review the cases where the benefit of selection grade had already been granted after counting the period spent on adhoc officiation prior to 20.8.2010. As the order dated 11.10.2011 passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.994/2011 in State of Rajasthan & ors. V/s Chandra Shekhar & ors. (supra) would reveal, the appeal stood dismissed solely on this consideration. In our considered opinion, therefore, in the attendant facts and circumstances, reliance on this order does not advance the case of the respondents -writ -petitioners. Instead, their challenge is squarely answered by the enunciation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra). They having been admittedly appointed on adhoc basis initially to be confirmed later on, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, their claim for first, second and third selection grades scales of pay in terms of the circular dated 25.1.1992 has to be essentially regulated thereby. We therefore find ourselves in respectful disagreement with the view taken in the impugned judgments and orders. In the above view of the matter, we find substantial merit in the present appeals. The impugned judgments and orders are thus set aside. We make it clear that by the determination herein the aspect of entitlement to the selection grades scales of pay on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services on the basis of the legal proposition as propounded in Jagdish Narain Chaturved (supra) has only been made. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. A copy of this judgment be placed in all the files. (Vijay Bishnoi), J. (Amitava Roy, CJ) ''
(3.) THUS , the issue that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of selection scale from their initial date of appointment, is no more res -integra and both the learned counsels for the parties fairly submit that the petitioners could not be granted the benefit of selection scale from the date of initially adhoc appointment, however, as far as recovery of past amount paid w.e.f. Initial date of appointment is concerned, the recovery cannot be made in terms of the State Government's own Circular dated 20.08.2010, which is also quoted herein below: ''GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN FINANCE DEPARTMENT (RULES DIVISION) ORDER No.F.16 (2) FD(Rules)/98 Jaipur, dated 20 AUG 2010 Sub: Prescription of Selection Grades for employees in Class -IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts and fixation of pay in Selection Grades issued in accordance of Supreme Court Judgment dated 08.05.2009 in Civil Appeal No.3620/09. The State Government servants in Class -IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and holders of isolated posts whose maximum of the pay scale does not exceed Rs.3200/ - were allowed three selection grades on completion of service of 9, 18 and 27 years from the date of first regular appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules. In some cases, the appointing authorities misinterpreted the aforesaid provisions and allowed selection grades by counting the period of ad -hoc service. The State Government filed SLPs in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Larger Bench of the Hon'ble High Court regarding grant of selection grade by counting the period of ad -hoc service from the date of initial appointment under State Government instead of regular service as per recruitment rules. Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the SLPs filed by the State Government and passed order on 8.5.2009 that the recruitment rules made a distinction between appointments made to the cadre/service in accordance with the relevant rules which are regular and appointments made de hors the regular recruitment rules which are ad -hoc. As per this judgment dated 8.5.2009 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the period of ad -hoc service is not countable for the purpose of grant of selection grades. In compliance, State Government issued an order No.F 16 (2) FD/Rules/98 dated 29.6.2009 prescribing the method of fixation of pay in the selection Grade w.e.f. 1.7.2009. Representations have been received that order dated 29.6.2009 has resulted in substantial drop in emoluments of lowly paid employees causing financial hardships. Accordingly, the State Government has reconsidered the matter and in partial modification of order of even number dated 29.6.2009, the Governor is pleased to order that in cases where Government servants have been granted selection grade prior to order dated 29.6.2009 by counting period of ad -hoc service, such cases may not be reviewed. However, where additional selection grades become admissible to such employees after 29.6.2009 under the rules, this shall be granted by excluding the period of ad -hoc service as per the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court. For example, if any employee got the advantage of first selection grade prior to 29.6.2009, on completion of service of 9 years (after inclusion of, say, three years' ad -hoc service), his next selection grade on completion of service of 18 years, on or after 29.6.2009, shall be granted only after three years of ad -hoc service is added to 18 years i.e. 18+3=21 years. All pending cases would be decided as per these orders. The cases of grant of selection grade decided subsequent to order of even number dated 29.6.2009, may be reviewed and revised in accordance with the provisions of this order. Similarly pension case of Government servants, finalized after re -fixation of pay under order dated 29.6.2009, may also be reviewed and revised. However cases of persons who retired prior to 29.6.2009 would not be re -opened. '' By order of the Governor Sd/ - (C.K. Mathew) Additional Chief Secretary, Finance '' ;