Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1319/2016. "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 14.12.2015 (Annex.22) may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to grant pay scale No.3 to the petitioners from the date they completed three years satisfactory services after initial appointment with arrears and with all consequential benefits and with interest on difference of pay @ 18% p.a. Any other order favourable to the petitioners may also be passed."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that the controversy is no more res-integra as this Court has already adjudicated the same prayer and the controversy has been decided in the matter of Bhanwar Lal v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13308/2016 decided on 20.12.2017 , which reads as under: "I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. This court while deciding the writ petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 21.05.2015 (Annex.-18) directed the respondents to decide the representation keeping in view the judgment in the case of Sanwarlal and Ashok Kumar Mali (supra). In the case of Ashok Kumar Mali (supra), the following directions were issued : "9. I have heard the petitioner present in person as well as Mr. Alok Srivastava, Deputy Director Personnel (HQ), OIC, appearing on behalf of the respondents and carefully considered the materials available on record. 10. It is not disputed that the controversy has been time and again raised, considered and adjudicated upon upto the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land. The issue raised is no more res-integra in view of the what has been observed herein above and by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land. 11. It is also not disputed that eh Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Number 20527 of 2012, preferred against the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2012 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Number 3 of 2012, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27th July, 2012. Moreover, the respondents also admitted the fact that the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of Bhagwati Prasad Verma and Jhunjha Ram; who have been accorded the Board's pay scale number 3 , in view of the final adjudication in their mattes. 12. In the result, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed 13. The respondents are directed to accord Board's pay scale number 3, in place of boards pay scale number 2, to the petitioner with consequential benefits, as have been extended to the identically situated employees more particularly qua Jhunjha Ram, whose date of appointment is same as that of the petitioner i.e. 2nd March, 1995. 14. The respondents are further directed to ensure compliance of this order within the period of one month from today. 15. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." Similarly in case of Sanwarlal (supra) also, the respondents were directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioners therein. A bare look of the order dated 29.09.2015 (Annex.-20) passed by the respondents indicates that the respondents have not recorded any reasons whatsoever as to why, when the persons like Ashok Kumar Mali and Sanwarlal (supra) were granted all consequential benefits, the petitioners were granted notional benefits only. Once this court by its order directed that the respondents to decide the representation in the light of judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Mali and Sanwarlal (supra) and it is not the case of the respondents that the case of the petitioners is different from the case of Ashok Kumar Mali and Sawarlal (supra), the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as granted to Ashok Kumar Mali etc. In view thereof, the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the respondents granting notional benefits only to the petitioners cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 29.09.2015 (Annex.-20) is set aside to the extent that the order to grant notional benefits has been passed, the respondents shall pass orders for granting all consequential benefits to the petitioners i.e. the petitioners would be entitled to all consequential benefits on account of allowing of erstwhile RSEB pay scale 2 w.e.f. 13.3.1998, 10.03.1998 and 13.03.1998 respectively. The needful be done by the respondents within period of two months."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court has affirmed the aforementioned position in the D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 37/2011 in the matter of Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and Anr. v. Subhash Chandra Soni and Ors. decided on 26.08.2017 . The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Of the various reasons given by the learned Single Judge, one reason is enough for dismissal of the appeal. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellants on its own gave salary in Scale-3 to Helper Grade-I who did not possess either ITI or NAC certificate. The learned Single Judge has held that in that view of the matter the appellants could not discriminate between persons holding posts of Helper Grade-I. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants states that some Helper Grade-I were wrongly given salary in Scale-3. Why this wrong was not rectified when detected has not been answered. 4. Under the circumstances it becomes irrelevant that the Supreme Court decision dated October 23, 1989 would govern the rights of those appointed as Helper Grade-I or Grade-II before the Supreme Court pronounced the decision. It would also be irrelevant that the Singh Sancheti Award was later on terminated by the appellants. 5. The writ-appeal is dismissed.";