- (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following prayer:- " (a) that an appropriate writ order or direction be issued to the respondents to allow selection scale Rs. 3700-5700 along with arrear w.e.f. 1.1.86. (b) that an appropriate writ order or direction be issued to the respondents to revise pension, gratuity, commutation and other pensionary benefits immediately after fixation in the selection scale with arrears alongwith 24% interest per annum on all pensionary benefits due to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.86 but actually delayed due to culpable negligence of the state functionaries.
(2.) Any other order direction or relief deems fit in the circumstances of this case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." The petitioner was appointed as Librarian in the respondent- Department on 31.8.1968. Services of the petitioner were subsequently confirmed w.e.f. 1.1.1969 and he continued to discharge duties in various Government Colleges until 1.7.1990 when he got retired. The petitioner was granted senior scale in the year 1969 but the selection scale was not allowed to him. As per the petitioner, he was entitled to get the selection scale w.e.f 1.1.1986 and if such selection scale was sanctioned to him, his pension, gratuity, commutation and other pensionary benefits shall stand revised accordingly. The respondents held a meeting of Screening Committee on 27.3.2003 and selection scales were granted to Librarian who were junior to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that as per the seniority list, he stood above Shri Mahendra Nath Sharma at Serial No.13 and his seniority status continued to be above all the other candidates between Serial No.13 to 19. The petitioner also categorically averred that throughout his service carrier he neither carried any adverse entry or any downgrading of service while discharging his duties. The persons junior to the petitioner were allowed the selection scales along with arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of the court to the reply in which the fact that grant of selection scale w.e.f. to the persons junior to the petitioner was not denied but it was explained that the petitioner was not found suitable for placement in the selection scale by the Screening Committee. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that it was the right of the respondent to consider the names for selection scale on their merits. Learned counsel for the respondents also drew attention of the court to the order dated 9.12.2011 in which grant of selection scale for Librarian required Consistent Satisfactory Appraisal Report and since the petitioner did not have Consistent Satisfactory Appraisal Report, therefore, he was not granted selection scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986.;