Ram Prasad Meena vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant petition has been filed by petitioner, who stood compulsory retired in public interest Under Rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 vide order dt. 19th May, 2000. However, basically assailed his grievance before Tribunal that despite of his adverse record of service, he is entitled for selection scale in terms of circular of the Government dt.25th January, 1992.

Petitioner joined service in 1980 as Forester. In the reply filed by respondents before Tribunal it was averred that petitioner remained wilful absent from duty for 675 days and apart from it, he was penalized with the penalty of one annual grade increment vide orders dt.8th September, 1983, 12th December, 1984 & 17th December, 1984 and was further penalized for with-holding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dt.16th January, 1987 and apart from it, his APARs for the year 1982 CW 11521/09th January, 1992 for grant of selection scale. In absence whereof, his grievance with respect to grant of selection scale was rejected under order impugned dt.2nd July, 2009 [Ann.3]. However, the petitioner filed review application that was rejected on 13th August, 2009. However, some factual error was made by Tribunal while recording a fact while disposing of review application.

Counsel for petitioner submits that as per circular dt.25th January, 1992, if there is a penalty of stoppage of increment or unsatisfactory service or adversity in the APARs, selection scale is deferred for one year after its became due. In the instant case, even if all the penalties and adverse remarks which were recorded in the respective APARs, of which reference has been made by learned Tribunal under order impugned, if taken at its face value, still he was entitled to get first selection scale before he could be compulsory retired as he completed 20 yrs. service by that time and in such circumstances, very finding recorded by Tribunal, requires interference by this Court.

In support of his submission, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Avadhesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 230.

Submission made by Counsel for petitioner is without substance for the reason that Clause 7 of circular dt.25th January, 1992 clearly envisages that selection grade is to be granted only to those employees whose record of service is satisfactory, which makes incumbent eligible for promotion, ordinarily, is to be looked into for the purpose of grant of selection scale. Clause 7 of circular dt.25th January, 1992, is reproduced as under:

Selection Grades in terms of this order shall be granted only to those employees whose record of service is satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the Selection Grade.

The relevant clause referred to supra clearly postulates that selection grade cannot be claimed by an employee as a matter of right and it can be CW 11521/09th January, 1992 and certainly overall record of service was taken note of by the State while taking decision for his compulsory retirement Under Rule 53(1) of the Rules being a deadwood vide order dt. 23rd May, 2000 which was never assailed by him.

So far as submission made with respect to deferment of grant of selection scale is concerned, if there is one punishment that can certainly be considered to defer. But, in the instant case, where there are number of punishments, it cannot be deferred as per mathematical calculation commensurating with overall punishment inflicted upon the employee and his suitability has to be adjudged for grant of selection scale based on service record.

As regards judgment [supra] on which Counsel placed reliance, is of no assistance in the facts of instant case.

Learned Tribunal has also examined and appreciated the material on record and found no illegality in the decision of the Government. This Court has gone through the order impugned and does not find any manifest error being committed by Tribunal, which may call for interference.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.