District Ajmer v. Government, Department of Secondary Education, Secretariat

: Mr. Shivendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy. G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/08/2025

1. It has been submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Craft) vide order dated 05.09.1985. After his appointment, no promotion whatsoever was granted to him. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Government issued circular dated 25.01.1992 for introducing the Scheme of Grant of Selection Scale, whereby in order to remove frustration of stagnation on same post for a long time, it was provided that any employee belonging to Class-IV, Sub-ordinate and Ministerial cadre, if has not been granted promotion within a period of 9/18/27 years he would be entitled [2025:RJ-JP:32285] (2 of 6) [CW-6769/2003] for I/II/III selection grade in the next promotion post, as the case may be.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had completed nine years of service on 20.10.1994 and was drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even after completion of nine years of service, the Office of Director Elementary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner issued one general order dated 22.10.1992, having reference of earlier order dated 02.07.1992 issued by the State Government thereby as many as 504 posts relating to craft, drawing etc., were abolished and the persons holding such posts were adjusted against the post of Senior Teacher (General). Pursuant to decision taken by the State Government, the petitioner was also adjusted/absorbed as Teacher Grade-II (General) and ultimately on attaining age of superannuation, he has retired w.e.f.,

31.03.2003 while holding the post of Senior Teacher (General).

4. Grievance of the petitioner is that as per circular dated

25.01.1992 issued by the Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan, Selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 is admissible to a Senior Teacher drawing his pay in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, but in quite erroneous and incorrect manner, instead of granting pay scale of Rs.2000-3200, the petitioner was granted lower pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. Such action of the respondents has caused him grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice as well as huge financial loss for the reason, thereafter he was granted annual increments every year according to the lower pay scale granted to him by virtue of selection grade and even his [2025:RJ-JP:32285] (3 of 6) [CW-6769/2003] last pay certificate was prepared accordingly, which has also adversely affected his post retiral benefits.

5. It has also been submitted that during the entire service period, petitioner continued to represent before the Higher Authorities for modifying the order of grant of selection grade and to award the benefits in correct pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 after completion of nine years of service. However, no heed was paid and consequently the petitioner is getting much lesser pension than he was entitled to.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has seriously opposed the writ petition and stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Senior Teacher (Craft), hence, he was entitled for getting benefits accordingly as admissible to a person holding the post of Senior Teacher (Craft).

7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that post of Senior Teacher (Craft) was an isolated post, for the reason that no further promotion channel was available, as no post having nomenclature of Lecturer in the Craft subject was ever created under the Rules.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that although the petitioner was entitled for selection grade as per circular dated 25.01.1992, yet a special provision has been made in the aforesaid circular for the persons who were either holding the isolated post or could not be promoted on account of unavailability of the higher post or for any other reason. For all such persons, selection grade was to be given as per Para 5 of circular dated 25.01.1992. Para 5 of the circular dated 25.01.1992 prescribes pay scales of Rs.1640-2900 as the selection grade for [2025:RJ-JP:32285] (4 of 6) [CW-6769/2003] the Teachers drawing pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. Accordingly, treating the petitioner to be a Senior Teacher (Craft), which was an isolated post, the respondents have rightly granted the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 while extending the benefit of selection of pay.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent has also raised a serious objection that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is suffering from the vice of delay and latches for the reason the impugned selection grade was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 05.04.1995, whereas the instant writ petition has been filed in the year 2003.

10. I have considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

11. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that much before consideration of case of the petitioner for the purpose of selection grade, the State Government abolished the post of Senior Teacher (Craft) and absorbed the same into the General Cadre and accordingly, the petitioner was also treated as Senior Teacher (General) in the year 1992 and he continued to hold the aforesaid post till his retirement w.e.f., 31.03.2003.

12. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade- II (Craft), therefore, in the entire service career, all the benefits shall be given to the petitioner treating him to be Teacher Grade-II (Craft), is totally misconceived and irrational. It is a settled proposition of law that date of consideration for granting a particular benefit is relevant. In the instant case, such relevant [2025:RJ-JP:32285] (5 of 6) [CW-6769/2003] date was 02.10.1994, when the petitioner completed his nine years of service. Admittedly on 02.10.1994, the petitioner was holding the post of Teacher Grade-II (General), hence, even for the purpose of selection grade, he ought to have been treated as Teacher Grade-II (General) and the pay scale admissible while extending selection grade for the post of Teacher Grade-II (General) should have been granted to the petitioner.

13. As regards the objection with regard to delay raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is sufficient to observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 (5) SCC 628 has held that the fixational wrongs are continuing wrong. Such observations were given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case where the law prescribed for limitation, however, in the instant case, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where there is no provision of limitation for approaching this Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner has stated that he continued to represent before the respondents for correcting the error occurred in grating selection grade to the petitioner, but no heed was paid and such order of granting lower pay scale as selection grade has not caused loss to the petitioner only once, but it continued to cause him loss every month and even the petitioner has suffered lower post retiral benefits on account of such erroneous order. Hence, the objection with regard to delay and latches raised by the petitioner is not tenable and is hereby rejected.

14. In the light of aforesaid discussion, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Order dated 05.04.1995 (Annexure-10) [2025:RJ-JP:32285] (6 of 6) [CW-6769/2003] is directed to be modified in the manner to provide pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 as Ist selection grade to the petitioner.

15. Respondents are directed to make pay fixation accordingly and to grant him all further benefits of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1996 and to revise his last pay certificate so as to modify post retiral benefits accordingly. The necessary exercise be carried out within a period of three months. In case, on account of such exercise, the petitioner is entitled for any monetary benefits, same may also be released within the aforesaid period.

16. Ordered accordingly. DAKSH/10 (ANAND SHARMA),J