SHARMA, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF Murlidhar claimed for a declaration to the effect that he was Compositor in Government Press of the former Bikaner State with effect from February 1,1969 in the grade of Rs. 50-2-70 and was entitled to get salary in that grade. He claimed a total amount of Rs. 3936. 88 as arrears of salary as detailed in the schedule annexed to the plaint.
(2.) THE plaintiff has failed in both the courts below and has come in second appeal to this Court. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that plaintiff Murlidhar was appointed as Compositor in Government Press of the former Bikaner State on August 24, 1948 as a substitute in place of Maganlal. He was confirmed on this post on November 1, 1948. His salary was Rs. 38/- per month. The amount of dearness allowance was Rs. 13/- and Rs. 14/- was paid as grain allowance. On February 1, 1949 on the resignation by one Chandumal Compositor, it was alleged that a vacancy fell and the plaintiff was transferred as Compositor in place of Chandumal in the grade of Rs. 50-2-70. The former Bikaner State allowed additional pay at the flat rate of Rs. 5/-per month from August 15, 1948. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the monthly pay of Rs. 50/- with effect from February 1, 1949 when he was transferred on the post of Compositor in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Chandumal. An amount of Rs. 3326. 28 was claimed as arrears of pay as due against the State of Rajasthan. So far as the defendant is concerned, it admitted the appointment of the plaintiff on the post of Compositor on August 24, 1948 and his confirmation on November 1, 1948. It was also admitted that on the resignation of Chandumal the plaintiff was posted in his place but it had been denied that he was given the grade of Rs. 50-2-70. Later on former Bikaner State under a Covenant merged in the United State of Rajasthan and the fixation of pay of the plaintiff was made in accordance with Rules. The crucial question in the case is whether the plaintiff was appointed in the grade of Rs. 50-2-70 as Compositor in the former Bikaner State in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Chandumal. It is not in dispute that right upto the date the plaintiff" was confirmed on the post of Compositor with effect from November 1, 1948; he was getting the basic pay ,of Rs. 38/- per month. It was not alleged by the plaintiff that when he was appointed as Compositor on August 24, 1948 or when he was confirmed on November 1, 1948 there was any time scale of pay in which he was appointed. The plaintiff has only pleaded that with effect from February 1, 1949 when he was transferred on the very same post of Compositor in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Chandumal that he was given the grade of Rs. 50-2-70. The plaintiff has not produced any order by which he was given the grade of Rs. 50-2-70 while he was posted by transfer on that very post of Compositor on the resignation of Chandumal. It was transfer or posting order which could have shown that the plaintiff was given the grade alleged by him It is very pertinent to note that in the year 1956, the plaintiff had himself given an option to the Government of Rajasthan that he elects the revised scale of Rs. 40-2-50-EB-2-70 with effect from 1st March 1956. Had the plaintiff's pay in the former Bikaner State would have been in the grade of Rs. 50-2-70. , he would have opted the grade of Rs. 50-3-65 EB-3-80 provided for Compositors in the Government Press Bikaner and Udaipur by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules and Schedules, 1956. On December 5, 1949 a Covenant was entered into between the Rules of various princely State including the Ruler of Bikaner. Art. 16 of the Covenant provided that the United State of Rajasthan hereby guarantees either the continuance in service of the permanent members of the Public Services of the former Rajasthan State and each of the new Covenant States on conditions which will not be less advantageous than those on which they were serving on November 1, 1948 or the payment of reasonable compensation or retirement on proportionate pension. As already stated, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was appointed or posted in the grade of Rs. 50-2-70 as a Compositor in former Bikaner State with effect from February 1, 1949. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff was only getting even according to him, a salary of Rs. 43/- only in February 1949. Had he been in the grade of Rs. 50-2-70 in former Bikaner State, his basic pay could never have been Rs. 43-and he would never have opted the revised scale in the grade of Rs. 40-1-50-EB-2-70 with effect from 1st March 1956. The plaintiff wants to take advantage of some statements like Ex. A-15 and A-16 which are as stated to be extracts from the bills of Government Press, Bikaner of December 1947 and February 1948 and also of October 1949. The bill No. 730 dated 25. 10. 1949 would go to show that the plaintiff's pay was only Rs. 30/ -. The bill No. 1279/-dated 19. 11. 1948 would go to show that even the basic pay of Chandumal was only Rs 48/- Had there been the grade of Rs. 50-2-70 in former Bikaner State neither Chandumal nor the plaintiff would have been drawing less than Rs. 50/- as pay. These extracts seem to. have been manipulated and reveal inconsistent and contrary positions.
(3.) AFTER the formation of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Unification of Pay Scales) Rules, 1950 came into force. These Rules would go to show that in relation to Compositors, three grades were created. These grades were : - (1) Grade I 50-3-60-EB-3-80 (2) Grade II 40-2-50-EB-2-60 (3) Grade III 25-1-80 It may by mentioned that Grade III was applicable only to Apprentices and Trainees, The proper grade applicable to the plaintiff was 40-2. 5-2-60 and he was fixed in this grade at Rs. 46/- as would appear from the extracts of his service Book Ex. A-12. There was re-fixation of his pay when the, Rajasthan Civil Services (Rationalisation of Pay Scales (Rules 1956 came into force and in these Rules for Compositors of Printing Press at Bikaner and Udaipur, the grade fixed was Rs. 60-4-80 5-100-EB-5-130. The plaintiff was refixed in this grade as is clear from the extact of his service book Ex. A-12 and had been paid according to these fixations. Since the plaintiff failed to establish that he was appointed as Compositor in the Former State of Bikaner on February 1, 1949 on account of the resignation of Chandumal in the grade of Rs. 50-2-70, his suit was rightly thrown out by both the courts below. This second appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents. . ;