Udaipur, Rajasthan v. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of

Judgment

4. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Jaleb Chowk, Jaipur, Presently PHQ, Lalkothi, Jaipur. The Director, Rajasthan Police Academy, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. The Deputy Director, Rajasthan Police Academy, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Laxmi Kant Tailor Ms. Anita Aggarwal & Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishesh Sharma on behalf of Ms. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order [2025:RJ-JP:32729] (2 of 7) [CW-4747/2008] 20/08/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this writ petition for assailing orders dated 06.06.2007 (Annex-11),

16.06.2007 (Annex-12) whereby benefits of selection grade earlier granted to the petitioner vide orders dated 18.03.1999,

27.07.2005 and 10.03.2006 has been modified in the manner detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents may be directed to release pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner including pension gratuity, encashment of leave etc. along with interest.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable in Civil Police/Armed Police vide order dated 16.10.1975. Thereafter by showing him as Constable Driver, vide order dated 05.08.1997, the petitioner was transferred at his own request to Rajasthan Police Academy (for short 'RPA'), Jaipur. Further, he was transferred in the same capacity vide order dated 23.06.2003. It has been submitted that on being posted as Constable Driver, the petitioner was also receiving M.T. allowance.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Director General of Police issued one circular dated

01.02.1999 which provides that in case, any employee in Police Department albeit initially appointed on general post but later on was absorbed on any technical or specific post, then the selection grade admissible for such technical/special posts shall be admissible to such employee. Learned counsel further states that pursuant to aforesaid circular dated 01.02.1999, selection grade earlier granted to the petitioner vide order dated 09.10.1996 was [2025:RJ-JP:32729] (3 of 7) [CW-4747/2008] further modified pursuant to aforesaid circular vide order dated

18.03.1999, whereby second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service was granted to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- and his pay was fixed at Rs. 1400/-, however, the same was revised at Rs.5000/- as per Rajasthan Civil Services (revised pay scale) Rules, 1998 w.e.f. the year 1996.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner indicates that vide order dated 27.07.2005, the petitioner was granted third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10,500 and his pay was fixed at Rs.6700/-. In the order dated 27.07.2005, the date of next increment was erroneously shown as on 01.03.2004, which was later on corrected vide order dated 10.03.2006 and accordingly as on 01.03.2006 pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.7300/- in the pay scale of Rs.6500- 10,500/-.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, the petitioner was sanctioned voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.10.2006 under Rule 50 of Rajasthan Civil Services and Pension Rules, 1996. Soon after retirement, the petitioner was entitled to get post retiral benefits including pension gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits. However, despite lapse of a considerably long time, without there being any reason such post retiral benefits were not released to the petitioner.

6. On the contrary, quite abruptly order dated

06.06.2007, followed by another order dated 16.06.2007, was issued whereby without granting any opportunity of hearing or without making compliance of principles of natural justice in quite arbitrary and illegal manner, selection grade granted to the [2025:RJ-JP:32729] (4 of 7) [CW-4747/2008] petitioner 11 years back were modified to the disadvantage of the petitioner and ignoring the fact that earlier on completion of 18 years of service, selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.1400- 2600/- was granted to the petitioner which was further revised as per pay scale rules, 1996 in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-, was reduced to the lower pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 w.e.f.

01.09.1996. Accordingly, the further benefits were also considerably reduced and by alleging payment of excess amount earlier, recovery thereof was also sought to be made.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasis that at the one hand, benefit of pension and other post retiral benefits have not been released to the petitioner for last around 19 years, on the other hand by arbitrarily reducing the benefits of selection grade, the petitioner was being forced to accept the lesser benefits then his entitlement. The petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned orders and for directing the respondents to release the pensionary benefits along with interest.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition by stating that any employee in the State Government is required to draw pay as per the pay scale prescribed in the rules. However, in the instant case erroneously, a wrong and higher pay scale was earlier sanctioned to the petitioner by virtue of grant of selection grade, for which the petitioner was not otherwise entitled.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents sought indulgence of this Court in respect of circular dated 27.12.2002 (Annex-R/1) in order to show that even if M.T. allowance has been granted to any member of civil police, who does not otherwise fall under M.T. [2025:RJ-JP:32729] (5 of 7) [CW-4747/2008] category, shall not be entitled to grant of selection grade in M.T. category. He further adds that, as per aforesaid circular even if such wrong benefits have been granted to the employee, the mistake can be corrected. Hence, in view of aforesaid circular, the benefits earlier erroneously granted to the petitioner in higher pay scale have rightly been withdrawn by the respondents. Since, the petitioner was not entitled for such higher benefits, therefore, there was no requirement whatsoever to afford any opportunity of hearing and since now the impugned orders were passed by the respondents strictly in accordance with rules, no interference in it is called for in the impugned orders. It has also been submitted that since pursuant to earlier orders passed by mistake, the petitioner has drawn excessive benefits, therefore such benefits are also liable to be recovered.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that after making correction in the pay scale vide impugned orders, the respondents have issued PPO and GPO in order to sanction post retiral benefits on 24.09.2007 and in order to get actual benefits of pension, gratuity and commutation, the petitioner was required to submit necessary documents including indemnity bond, which despite repeated reminders were not submitted by the petitioner. Hence, the delay in releasing the pensionary benefits, if any, cannot be attributed to the respondents. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissing the writ petition.

11. I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and examined the record.

12. From the record, it is not disputed that the benefits of selection grade were earlier granted to the petitioner in the year [2025:RJ-JP:32729] (6 of 7) [CW-4747/2008] 1996, which were further revised from time to time and the petitioner continued to draw benefits under such orders for as long as 10 years up to the date of his retirement. Even if, the stand taken by the respondents that pursuant to circular dated

27.12.2002 (Annex-R/1), the petitioner was not entitled for higher selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- revised as Rs.5000-8000/-, is taken into consideration, even then on the basis of such circular also, firstly no action to correct the fixation in right pay scale was taken by the respondents while the petitioner was in service. It was only after granting him voluntary retirement w.e.f 30.10.2006, the respondents appear to have processed the matter for revising and reducing the benefits of selection grade, however, even then no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner prior to withdrawing the higher benefits earlier granted to the petitioner.

13. Had there being any such notice, the petitioner would certainly have had opportunity to show his entitlement, as well as to show as to whether the circular dated 27.12.2002 (Annex-R/1) relied by the respondents can be made applicable retrospectively also or not. Withdrawing such benefits after 11 years, much after retirement of the petitioner and that too without following principles of natural justice and by applying the circular dated

27.12.2002 retrospectively cannot be allowed to sustain. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, the impugned orders passed by the respondents on 06.06.2007 and 16.06.2007 are hereby quashed and set aside.

14. So far as grievance of the petitioner with regard to denial of pensionary benefits, this Court finds that pension [2025:RJ-JP:32729] (7 of 7) [CW-4747/2008] payment order and gratuity payment orders were issued by the respondents on 24.09.2007, however, only on the pretext that the benefits pursuant to such orders were not as per alleged entitlement of the petitioner, admittedly, the petitioner did not make requisite compliance and failed to submit the requisite indemnity bond and other documents demanded by the respondent-Department. Under these circumstances, since as per Rules the retiral benefits should be released within 60 days, the respondents can be held liable for delaying benefits only up to September, 2007 and for the period spent thereafter, the delay cannot be attributed to the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for interest on pensionary benefits only up to 24.09.2007 from the date of his retirement.

15. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the benefits of selection grade in accordance with order dated

18.03.1999, 27.07.2005 and 10.03.2006. Consequently, the pensionary benefits may also be revised and amended PPO, GPO and CPO be also issued. The petitioner is also entitled to interest on @ 9% P.A. for delayed payment of pensionary benefits after expiry of 60 days from the date of retirement only up to 24 th September, 2007. Necessary compliance be made by the respondents within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

16. Ordered accordingly. NEERU/47 (ANAND SHARMA),J