B.J.SHETHNA,J. - (1.) THE petitioners, who are untrained Gram Sevaks, have filed this petition and prayed that the impugned order dated 28.1.1986. 28.2.1986 and 21.7.1987 be set aside and prayed that the respondents be directed to grant arrears to the petitioners on account of fixation in new pay -scale. They also prayed that they should be paid salary equal to the trained Gram Sevak. However, at the time of hearing, the challenge was restricted only to the grant of arrears from the date of their appointment till the date of order (Annex. 3) dated 26.1.1986.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Singhvi for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court (V.S. Kokje and B.S. Chouhan, JJ.) delivered on January 6. 1988 in case of Chandra Shekhar v. State of Rajasthan) in DB Special Appeal (Writs) No. 377 of 1996 and allied matters. Mr. Singhvi has also relied upon the Articles 29 and 31 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules') and submitted that the petitioners were entitled for the arrears from the date of their appointment i.e., 3.7.1980 till the order at Annex. 3 dated 21.8.1986 was passed. He frankly stated that the petitioners have been paid the salary as per the order dated 21.8.1986, thereafter. Thus, the challenge is restricted to the arrears from the date of appointment i.e., 3.7.1980 till the date of order at Annex. 3 dated 28.1.1986. In Chandra Shekhar's case (supra) the petitioners were L.D.Cs. They are governed under the Rajasthan Service Rules whereas the present petitioners are Gram Sevaks and they are governed under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the Panchayat Rules'). The submission of learned Counsel Shri Bishnoi is that Rules 29 and 31 of the Rajasthan Service Rules will not be applicable in the present case as the petitioners are Gram Sevaks and they are governed under the Panchayat Rules. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in case of State of Rajasthan v. Gopi Kishan Sen (AIR 1992 SC 1754 at page 1756 para 6), he submitted that the petition is required to be dismissed.
(3.) AS stated earlier, the Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Shekhar's case (supra) and others was decided on the facts of that case wherein the petitioners were Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.). From the judgment it appears that their appointments were initially for a fixed period but in a particular pay -scale, which entitles them to one increment provided they continued in service. They were continued in service from 1986 to 1993 as temporary employees in the pay -scale given at the time of appointment. The pay -scale itself indicated that they would earn increment periodically. In view of the peculiar facts of those cases, the Division Bench of this Court held that, 'Thus, on the basis of contract of employment itself, the appellants were entitled to grant of increments during the period they were serving in temporary capacity before the regularisation of their services. Therefore, even de hors the rules, they were entitled to grant of increments on the basis of contract of service.';