HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No v. Brij Raj Singh S/o Late

: Mr. R.M.Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 30/04/2025

1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metro in appeal No. 17/2013 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.2, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur in civil suit No. 360/2010 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 completion of his 9 years of service from 31.05.2010 and he was [2025:RJ-JP:17181] (2 of 5) [CSA-87/2018] also held entitled to get done the re-pay fixation 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 mentioning therein that on

31.05.1999, he was appointed on the post of Conductor on compassionate ground. Finance Department of State Government vide its order dated 25.01.1992 issued the instructions for granting first, second and third selection scale to the state government employees after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Defendants- Corporation accepted the said order vide order dated 27.04.1993 and also granted the benefit of selection scales to its employees after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Since the plaintiff was appointed on 31.05.1999 and had completed more than 11 years of service, therefore, he was also entitled to get first selection scale from 31.05.2008 after completion of 9 years of service but the defendants had not granted the same and plaintiff was informed that charge-sheet was under contemplation.

3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff was served charge-sheet and punishment orders were passed against him. He also remained suspended, so, he was not entitled to get selection scale after completion of 9 years of service, 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 the plaintiff is entitled to get the first selection scale on completion of 9 years [2025:RJ-JP:17181] (3 of 5) [CSA-87/2018] of service from the date of his appointment i.e. 31.05.1999 and is entitled to get his pay fixation done accordingly? (2) Whether after his pay fixation, the plaintiff is entitled to get difference amount of salary and interest @ 12% per annum thereon? (3) Whether the plaintiff has wrongly valued the suit and filed the suit on deficit court fees? (4) Whether the dispute raised by the plaintiff falls in the category of industrial disputes, therefore, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? (5) Relief?”

5. To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW- 1- Brij Raj Singh and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Banwari Lal Nirmal and exhibited certain documents.

6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2013, partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and held him entitled to get first selection scale on completion of 9 years of service from 31.05.2010 and also to get done his revised pay fixation and to get the difference amount of salary.

7. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated 30.09.2013 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated

22.11.2017 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 [2025:RJ-JP:17181] (4 of 5) [CSA-87/2018]

31.05.2010 because services of the plaintiff were not satisfactory, as a result of which, he was given charge-sheet and awarded punishments. Learned counsel further submits that the present dispute is industrial dispute, so civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. 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 defendants. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had rightly came to the conclusion that civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit because present suit was filed by the plaintiff as there was violation of the principle of natural justice. Despite completion of 9 years of service, defendants had not granted him first selection scale. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants is devoid of merit and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. So, the appeal be dismissed.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments.

11. It is an admitted position that learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court observed that despite completion of 9 years of service, plaintiff was not awarded the first selection scale. Defendants failed to adduce any cogent reason for not granting first selection scale to the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments clearly stated that civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit where principle of natural justice is violated. So, the [2025:RJ-JP:17181] (5 of 5) [CSA-87/2018] present appeal is devoid of merit. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The civil second appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Ritu/49 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J