MADAN, J. - (1.) SINCE both the writ petitions involve identical questions for consideration of this Court and the grounds raised therein are also common in respect of reoption to revision of pay to the petitioners serving in the Registry of this High Court, they were heard together at the request of both the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts relevant for disposal of these two petitions, briefly stated, are- Civil Writ Petition No. 2699/93 Bhanwara Ram State of Rajasthan & Others.
(2.) BHANWARARAM petitioner was initially appointed as L. D. C. by the District Education Officer, Pali on 27. 6. 1975. Thereafter upon his regular selection, he was appointed as L. D. C. by the Registrar of this High Court on 4. 3. 77 and he joined as such as 1. 4. 1977. Subsequently, he was confirmed as LDC vide order dt. 25. 8. 78 (Ann. 1) and promoted as U. D. C. on 23. 7. 85. Thereafter, upon having been declared to have qualified in the promotional test for the post of Stamp Reporter/court Fee Examiner vide order dt. 4. 12. 85 (Ann. 3), he was promoted as such vide order dt. 7. 7. 92 (Ann. 4 ). He joined as Stamp Reporter on 30. 7. 92 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. At the time of his promotion to the post of U. D. C. , the petitioner was drawing basic pay at Rs. 720/-in the pay scale of Rs. 610-1090 proclaimed by Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983 (for short, "revised Pay Rules of 1983"), which came into effec w. e. f. 1. 9. 1981. The Revised Pay Rules 1983 came to be revised by Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 (for short, "revised Pay Rules of 1987)" w. e. f 1. 9. 86. The Revised Pay Rules of 1987 again came to be further revised w. e. f. 1. 9. 1988 by Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 (for short "revised Pay Rules of 1989" ). Thus, upon his promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter on 30. 7. 92, he was fixed on basic pay at Rs. 1850/-in pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 of the Revised Pay Rules of 1989 after giving the petitioner benefit of difference of pay scale consequent upon revisions of 1987-88. On 27. 7. 92 the petitioner submitted a representation (Ann. 4) to the Registrar of this Court (respondent No. 3), praying therein for change of his earlier option date for revision of pay under the Revised Pay Rules of 1983 and 1986. He re-opted to change his option from date 1. 9. 1981 of Revised Pay Rules, 1983 to 5. 7. 1985 and requested to continue to draw pay in the pay scale existing before coming into force of the Revised Pay Rules, 1983 till his option dated 5. 7. 1985 was acceded to. His representation dt. 27. 7. 92 (Ann. 7) was referred by the respondent No. 3 by letter dt. 7. 8. 92 (Ann. 8) to the Law Secretary for according special sanction of the Finance Department permitting to revision of his option. But, by letter dt. 20. 10. 92 (Ann. 9) impugned herein, the Law Secretary communicated rejection of the representation for revision of option against the petitioner. The rejection was communicated to the petitioner by respondent No. 3's letter dt. 3. 12. 92 (Ann. 10 ). Civil Writ Petition No. 6192/1996 Manohar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan & others After having been regularly selected Manohar Kumar Jain petitioner was appointed as substantive L. D. C. in terms of order dt. 24. 8. 77 by the Registrar of this Court (respondent No. 3 ). He joined on 1. 9. 77 and was confirmed as LDC by order dt. 25. 8. 78 (Ann. 1) and promoted as U. D. C. by order dt. 23. 4. 88. He joined as UDC on 30. 4. 1988. The petitioner had appeared in the recruitment test for the post of Translator on 30. 8. 1988 and was declared to have qualified in the said test and accordingly was promoted as Translator by order dt. 29. 10. 88 (Ann. 5) in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2420. He jointed on the post of Translator on 10. 1. 1989. At the time of his promotion to the post of UDC on 30. 4. 88, the petitioner was drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs. 1120-2050 proclaimed by the Revised Pay Rules of 1987. Upon his promotion to the post of Translator, he was fixed at Rs. 1275 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2420 of the Revised Pay Rules, 1987. After proclamation of New Pay Scales under Revised Pay Rules 1989, the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1320/-w. e. f. 1. 9. 1988 on the post of UDC and fixed at Rs. 1400/-w. e. f. 10. 1. 89 upon his promotion to the post of Translator.
(3.) THE petitioner presented his representation dt. 5. 6. 92 (Ann. 2) to the Registrar of this Court (respondent No. 3), stating therein that he may be allowed to re-opt to change his option from date 1. 9. 88 to 1. 9. 91 and to continue to draw pay in the pay scale existing before the Revised Pay Rules 1989 came into effect and then accordingly be permitted to opt for refixation for drawing pay in the pay scale of the Revised Pay Rules of 1989 applicable to the post of UDC w. e. f. 1. 9. 1991 at Rs. 1550/-and then again refixed at pay of Rs. 1650/-as admissible to the post of Translator in the Revised Pay Scale of Rules, 1989, w. e. f. 1. 9. 1991. He again presented his detailed representation dt. 15. 4. 93 (Ann. 9) which was sent to the respondent State Government authority by letter dt. 8. 7. 93. THE respondent No. 3 recommended the matter of the petitioner's representations to the State Government by letter dt. 3. 1. 95. Again on 12. 2. 96 the petitioner presented a detailed representation (Ann. 12) followed by another letter dt. 21. 5. 96 (Ann. 4), which was referred by the respondent No. 3 to the State Govt. vide letter dt. 28. 6. 96 (Ann. 16 ). By letter dt. 27. 8. 96 (Ann. 17), the Dy. Secretary Law Department communicated rejection of his representation for revision of his previous option. Being aggrieved by the rejection to claim of the petitioners for revision of their previous option as stated in their representations, referred to above, the petitioners have come up to this Court by way of these two writ petitions, which are now being dealt with and finally decided by this common order. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by letter dt. 9. 8. 89 (Ann. 6) the Finance Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan accorded permission in favour of 41 officials of the State Insurance Department for exercising reoption from the date on which they reached at the scale of Rs. 610/-in existing pay scale of the Revised Pay Rules, 1987 and similarly general permission was accorded by the Finance Department by memorandum dt. 20. 11. 93 (Ann. 10) to exercise option/reoption under the Revised Pay Rules, 1989 to all Government servants but when the representations of the petitioners were referred to the Finance Department for exercising option/reoption under the Revised Pay Rules, 1983 and 1987 by the respondent No. 3 recommending their case, which were kept pending by the respondents State Government authorities till 20. 10. 1992 (in the case of petitioner Bhanwararam) and 20. 9. 1996 (in the case of petitioner Manohar Jain) when rejection was communicated. Moreover, in case of similarly situated officials namely Sarva Shri Ramesh Chand Soni, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, (Mrs) Madhu Jain, Jagat Singh, and Rajesh Jain, who were promoted on the post of UDC by a common order dt. 23. 4. 88 (Ann. 2 in CWP No. 6192/96) passed by the respondent No. 3, alongwith petitioner Manohar Jain, the respondent No. 2 permitted them to change their previous option by letter dt. 1. 6. 92 (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 6192/96), but declined the same to the present petitioners, thus making a case of gross discrimination, which is illegal, arbitrary and the action of the respondent State Government declining to the petitioners their right for exercising reoption is violative of the provisions contained in Articles 14, 16, and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. ;