IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5988/1995. Shaheed Ahmad & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- September 15, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioners. Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:-
Since nobody has been appearing in this case for the petitioners, matter was heard and case of the petitioners was examined in the light of the pleadings and the arguments of Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Government Counsel.
Writ petitioners were working on the post of Binder Grade-I with the Government Press of the State have approached this Court in the year 1995 with the grievance that the respondents have so far not granted them benefit of revised pay scale of 1988 and therefore they be directed to grant such benefits to them and accordingly fix their pay. Petitioners have in the memo of writ petition contended that while their names appear at Sr.Nos.45, 47 and 49, respectively in the seniority list dated 16/4/1977, one Sitaram who was junior to them, whose name appeared at Sr.No.88, in that seniority list, has been given the benefit of revision of pay scale in the revise pay scale of 1988 and paid all the arrears on 26/5/1994 whereas, Superintendent Government Press had recommended case of both petitioners as well as Sitaram simultaneously to the Government. Name of Sitaram was mentioned at Sr.No.5 therein whereas petitioners were not fortunate enough to get the said favour. According to the petitioners, they were never paid the pay scale starting from Rs.1750 in the year 1992 whereas their junior Sitarm was getting the very pay.
Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that as per Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987, petitioners were entitled to be fixed at Rs.1490/- from 27/8/1991 and of such pay, their increments were granted. As per the aforesaid rules, petitioner was required to elect such revised pay scale from 1/4/1988 or any other benefits within a period of two months from the date of publication of the rules. Since petitioners failed to timely exercise their option, their request for option was not granted by the Finance Department. They therefor cannot be treated at par with Sitaram because he had timely exercised option but petitioners did not exercise the option within time.
Having considered the arguments aforesaid, I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the parties. Even if petitioners did not exercise option, that would not mean that they would not be entitled to revision of pay of the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987 because there is always provision in every revised pay scale rules that if the option is not exercised, then an employee concerned shall be deemed to have opted to elect revised pay scales from the date such pay revision is made applicable, which in the present case was 1/4/1988. But then there is another aspect of the matter which is that when Sitaram, who is much junior to the petitioners was granted benefits as a result of which, he started getting higher pay than petitioners, petitioners are obviously entitled to get their pay scale stepped up at par to that of Sitaram Sharma as per the next below rule.
In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay all the benefits to the petitioner at par to Shri Sitaram Sharma and accordingly revise their pay and grant them arrears. If in the meantime, petitioners have retired, they would also be entitled to revision of other retiral benefits and pension as a result implementation of this judgment.
Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of four months from the date copy of this order is submitted to the respondents. Copy of this judgment be endorsed to the petitioners.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
ani