MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged validity of orders dt. 06.05.2005 and 31.08.2005, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service w.e.f. 16.03.1997 on the strength of judgment dt. 12.12.2003 passed in D.B. Special Appeal No. 350/2000 "Devi Singh vs. State of Rajasthan", has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that the benefit under the judgment can be extended only to those employees in whose favour the judgment has been rendered by this Court. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner employed on the post of Constable in Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Force was charge sheeted alongwith four other constables including one Shri Devi Singh, on the charge of a mirror being stolen while they were discharging their duties as guard. On the misconduct of supervisory negligence being found proved, a penalty of censure was inflicted on all the five constables including the petitioner and the cost of the mirror was ordered to be recovered.

(2.) On completion of 27 years of service, the petitioner became entitled for grant of selection grade w.e.f. 16.03.1997 in terms of government order dt. 25.01.1992 which was granted to him but, the same was later withdrawn without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and vide order dt. 16.07.1998, the same was made effective w.e.f. 16.03.1998. Similarly, the selection grade granted to another employee Shri Devi Singh was also withdrawn vide order dt. 10.09.1998 and the selection grade which was granted to him earlier w.e.f. 25.01.1992 was made effective w.e.f. 25.01.1993, on account of aforesaid minor penalty of censure imposed vide order dt. 13.05.1992. The validity of the said order was assailed by Shri Devi Singh by way of an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal Bench Jodhpur. However, the appeal preferred was rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dt 18.09.1999. The writ petition (No. 400/2000) preferred by Shri Devi Singh assailing the validity of order dt. 18.09.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dt. 14.02.2000. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner preferred a D.B. Special Appeal No. 350/2000 which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dt. 12.12.2003. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the grant of selection grade under order dt. 25.01.1992 issued by the State Government is not dependent on availability of certain posts in the higher pay scales but it is for those employees who have not received any promotions for many years on the basis of completion of number of years of service. Accordingly, it was held that the extension of principle that the selection scale under the Circular dt. 25.01.1992 involves in element of selection for discharging higher duties or more efficient duties and being restrictive in nature, cannot be accepted as right premise. The Division Bench further held that in the background of the incident for which the petitioner was awarded punishment of census did not affect at all the suitability for the post which he was holding to carry selection scale on completion of minimum numbers of years of service. The Hon'ble Division Bench opined that withdrawal of the selection grade involving civil consequences could not have been affected except by issuing show cause notice. Accordingly, order impugned withdrawing the selection grade was quashed.

(3.) It is not in dispute that vide a common order dt. 13.05.1992 passed by the disciplinary authority of the respondent department, the petitioner and other four employees including Shri Devi Singh were awarded with minor penalty of censure for the same charge of supervisory negligence being proved against them. It is stated that not only Shri Devi Singh but other three employees have also been granted the benefit of selection grade with effect from the date they have completed 27 years of service notwithstanding, passing of the punishment of censure. In these circumstances, the petitioner, a person similarly situate cannot be picked up for a different treatment being given. The view taken by the respondents that since the judgment has been rendered by this Court in favour of Shri Devi Singh alone, therefore, the petitioner, though similarly situate cannot be extended same benefit, is ex -facie erroneous. As a matter of fact, the question of law having been determined by the Division Bench of this Court as aforesaid, the respondents were under an obligation to extend the benefits thereof to all the similarly situated persons. To say the least, the treatment meted out by the respondents to the petitioner is avowedly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory so as to violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. Order impugned Annex. 5 dt. 06.05.2005 and Annex. 10 dt. 31.08.2005 are quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the selection grade to the petitioner with effect from the date he has completed 27 years of service. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.