Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport, Corpora- tion Sikar Depot v. Khacher Singh S/o

: Mr. Rewar Mal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 16 /0

1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appel- lants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 12/2012 whereby the first appel- late Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and af- firmed the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.2, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 297/2010 whereby the trial Court while partly decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) held him entitled to get first selection scale on [2025:RJ-JP:20600] (2 of 5) [CSA-321/2018] completion of his 9 years of service from 08.06.2006 and he was also held entitled to get done his pay fixation accordingly and to get the difference amount of salary.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants for grant of first and second selection scales after completion of 9 and 18 years of service. It was also mentioned that in the year 1984, he was appointed as Conductor in regular pay scale. Later on, he was terminated from service on 01.01.1985. Against the said termination order, the plaintiff filed the suit but the same was withdrawn on the condition of reinstating him back in service by the defendants. After with- drawal of the suit, defendants reinstated him back in service vide order No. 316 dated 04.02.1989. With continuity of service from

01.01.1985, Finance Department of State Government vide its or- der dated 25.01.1992 issued the instructions for granting first, second and third selection scales to the state government employ- ees after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Defendants- Corporation accepted the said order and also granted the selection scales to their employees after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. It was submitted that since the plaintiff was appointed in the year 1984 and vide order No. 316 dated 04.02.1989, the plaintiff was reinstated with continuity from 01.01.1985 and he completed 22 years of service. Since the plaintiffs' services were treated as continuous from 01.01.1985, therefore, he was entitled to get first selection scale from 01.01.1994 after completion of 9 years of service and second selection scale from 01.01.2003 after completion of 18 years of service but the defendants had not [2025:RJ-JP:20600] (3 of 5) [CSA-321/2018] granted the said benefits to him. Plaintiff is entitled to get the same alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.

3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that service record of the plaintiff was not good. Various charge-sheets were issued and punishment of stoppage of 8 annual grade increments was im- posed upon him and twice he was punished with fine. So, his first selection scale of 9 years was extended for 8 years and the same was payable from 08.06.2008 but his services were terminated vide order dated 30.06.2007. So, he is not entitled to get first and second selection scale after completion of 9 and 18 years of ser- vice, therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on cost.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get a dec- laration against the defendants that he is enti- tled to get first and second selection scale on completion of 9 and 18 years of service in ac- cordance with corporations regulations and accordingly he is entitled to get his re-pay fix- ation? (2). Whether after pay fixation, the plaintiff is entitled to get the difference amount of salary alongwith interest @ 12% per annum? (3). Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is li- able to be dismissed being time barred? (4). Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? [2025:RJ-JP:20600] (4 of 5) [CSA-321/2018] (5). Relief?

5. To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW- 1-Khacher Singh and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Rajkumar Jain and exhibited certain documents.

6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012, partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and held him entitled to get first selection scale on com- pletion of 9 years of service from 08.06.2006 and to get done his pay fixation. The plaintiff was also held entitled to get the differ- ence amount of salary.

7. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated

23.03.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in granting the selection scale to the plaintiff from

08.06.2006 because services of the plaintiff were not satisfactory, as a result of which, he was given charge-sheets and awarded punishments i.e. stoppage of 8 annual grade increments. So, date of granting first selection scale was extended to 08.06.2006 and twice he was punished with fine, so he was held entitled to get first selection scale from 08.06.2008 but service of the plaintiff was terminated on 30.06.2007, so, there is no ground to grant him first and second selection scales. Learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court had erred in partly decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the defen- [2025:RJ-JP:20600] (5 of 5) [CSA-321/2018] dants. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned judgments.

10. Trial Court while considering the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that on account of punishment in the in- quiries, first selection scale of the plaintiff was extended upto 8 years. After extension of 8 years, he is entitled to get first selec- tion scale from 08.06.2006 as his services were terminated vide order dated 30.06.2007. Therefore, he was not held entitled for second selection scale. So, the trial Court as well as the first ap- pellate Court had not committed any error in partly decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants be- ing bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dis- missed accordingly.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/59 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J