Maya Rani Mathur vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner, Maya Rani Mathur, has approached this Court praying for being granted the benefit of first selection grade upon completion of 9 years service with effect from 25.1.1992. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to grant her promotion on the post of A.C.T.O. with effect from the date her juniors were so promoted.

The petitioner was appointed in the Commercial Taxes Department in the year 1980 and was confirmed in service in the year 1985. By circular dated 25.1.1992, the State Government introduced a scheme for grant of selection grades to its employees, who were facing stagnation. The petitioner claims that despite being eligible for the same in 1992 itself, the first selection scale was granted to the petitioner with a delay of 2 years w.e.f. 14.11.1994 vide order Annex.P/2 dated 13.6.1997. Later on, the said date was altered and the benefit of first selection scale was extended to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.1.1993 by order Annex.P/2A dated 3.3.1999.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the deferment of one year to her in grant of selection scale and accordingly, she represented to the authorities but the representations thus submitted were not responded to.

The petitioner has further asserted in the writ petition that the respondents ignored the petitioner''s case for promotion in the year 1997 and persons junior to the petitioner were promoted, on which she approached Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by way of an appeal. The said appeal came to be rejected by order Annex.P/16 dated 9.1.2009. The aforesaid order too has been assailed in the instant writ petition.

The petitioner has passed away during the pendency of the writ petition and thus, her husband has been permitted to pursue the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two departmental punishments of censure, which were imposed upon the petitioner, were admittedly dated 17.6.1993 and 23.11.1993 respectively and, therefore, there could not have been any justification for deferment of first selection scale accruing to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.1.1992 because by then, the petitioner had completed nearly 12 years of service. He further submits that the denial of promotion to the petitioner in the year 1997 and thereafter, in the year 1999, is unjustified because, on account of the orders imposing penalty of censure, the petitioner''s case for promotion at best could have been deferred by two years and such benefit could not have been denied indefinitely. He thus prays that the impugned order Annex.P/16 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner deserves to be granted the relief prayed for in the writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the challenge which the petitioner has laid in the instant writ petition is highly belated. The petitioner was rightly given the benefit of first selection scale with a deferment of two years because she was suffering two penalties of censure. He places reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shankar Lal Parmar in support of the contention that when a penalty of censure is imposed upon an employee, the grant of selection scale is required to be deferred by one year. He further submits that petitioner was denied promotion because her service record for preceding 5 years on the date when the D.P.C. was convened, was not satisfactory. So far as the promotions made in the years 1997 and 1999 are concerned, the petitioner has not impleaded those alleged juniors, who were promoted in preference to the petitioner, as party respondents in the writ petition and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue the relief claimed for on account of non-impleadment of necessary party.

Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was substantively appointed on the post of C.T.I. Grade-II in the respondent department in the year 1980. The order Annex.P/2A dated 3.3.1999 itself speaks that the petitioner became entitled to the benefit of first selection scale on completing 9 years of service w.e.f. 25.1.1992 itself i.e. the date of circular by which the selections scales were introduced by the State Government. However, the reason for deferment of two years as mentioned in the said order is that the petitioner was suffering two department punishments of censure which were inflicted upon her on 17.6.1993 and 23.11.1993 and thus, the benefits of selection scale were deferred. Originally, the petitioner had been granted first selection scale w.e.f. 14.11.1994 by order Annex.P/2 dated 13.6.1997 but later on, the said order was amended by order Annex.P/2A dated 3.3.1997 and the first selection scale was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 25.1.1993. The petitioner continuously represented against the remaining one year''s deferment of first selection scale but the respondent authorities did not respond to her representations. No justification is available on the record to show as to why the benefit of selection scale which admittedly accrued to the petitioner on 25.1.1992 itself because by that time, the petitioner had put in 12 years of service, was denied to her from that date. Two departmental penalties of censure, on the strength whereof the deferment is justified, were inflicted upon the petitioner in the year 1993 and, therefore, there was no justification for such deferment whatsoever. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for a direction that the benefit of first selection scale should be admitted to her from 25.1.1992 instead of 25.1.1993 and the order Annex.P/2A deserves to be modified accordingly.

However, as regards the claim for promotion is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the said relief because the promotion was denied to the petitioner in the year 1997 for the reason of the abovementioned orders imposing penalty. The fact that the petitioner was suffering departmental punishment clearly leads to an inference that the petitioner''s service record was not satisfactory for the preceding 5 years when the matter was taken up by the D.P.C. in the year 1997. So far as the promotion of 1999 is concerned, the petitioner has not impleaded likely to be affected persons as respondents in the writ petition, therefore, the said relief cannot be granted to her.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order Annex.P/16 dated 9.1.2009 as well as Annex.P/2A dated 3.3.1999 are hereby modified and it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall be granted benefit of first selection scale w.e.f. 25.1.1992 and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. The amount accruing from the aforesaid direction shall be paid to the petitioner''s legal representative within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order.

No order as to cost.