1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4953/2008 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. vs. Satyanarain Sewag & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4953/2008 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. vs. Satyanarain Sewag & Anr. Date : 6.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.BS Bhati, for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Purohit, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Though this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.3114/2001 (Arun Kumar Mathur vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.) by judgment dated 15.5.2009 held that the controversy raised by the petitioner, like the controversy raised in this writ petition, is already answered in the case of Rakesh Kumar Pathak vs. R.S.R.T.C. and anr. reported in 1997 WLC (Raj.) UC 23, yet learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4953/2008 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. vs. Satyanarain Sewag & Anr. submitted that at that time, the division bench judgment of this Court challenging Bal Mukund Sharma's case was not brought to the notice of this Court. In fact, Bal Mukund Sharma's case, which was held to be not applicable to the facts of the case, was subject matter in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.55/2004 (R.S.R.T.C. vs. Bal Mukund Sharma and others) and the Division Bench of this Court considered who is existing employees after considering the “Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987 as well as Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989” and held that the persons who were initially appointed on the post of conductor and who subsequently were given appointment on the post of LDC in view of petitioner corporation's decision to appoint on the post of LDC, the employees who were working on the post of conductor are not the “existing employee” for the purpose of jump in pay scale under the Rules of 1989. In view of the division bench judgment of this Court in Bal Mukund Sharma's case (supra), the petitioner was not existing employee at the relevant time and, therefore, was not entitled to jump in salary as 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4953/2008 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. vs. Satyanarain Sewag & Anr. has been awarded by the Labour Court. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as the judgments referred above i.e. SB judgment of Arun Kumar Mathur (supra), SB judgment of Rakesh Kumar Pathak (supra), DB judgment of Bal Mukund Sharma (supra) and division bench judgment delivered in the case of Bhagwan Singh & Ors. vs. R.S.R.T.C. and Anr. reported in 2002(4) SLR 59. It appears from the judgment of Rakesh Kumar Pathak (supra) that the different facts of different writ petitions were considered in detail and the facts of Rakesh Kumar Pathak's case in substance were that the employees were initially appointed on the post of conductor and in view of the decision of the petitioner employer to appoint the existing employees from the cadre of conductor to the post of LDC, the petitioners of Rakesh Kumar Pathak's case applied for the said post and got appointment on the post of LDC. Because of that, they were shifted to new pay scale and both 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4953/2008 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. vs. Satyanarain Sewag & Anr. the employees gave their option to continue in their old pay scale upto 31.8.92 and to shift to new pay scale w.e.f. 1.9.92. The Revised Pay Scale Rules were considered in detail and the Single Bench of this Court held that under Regulation 15, where a corporation employee continue to draw his pay in the existing pay scale and opts to draw pay in the revised pay scale from a date later than 1.9.88, his pay from the latter date in revised pay scale shall be fixed on the basis of his pre- fixation emoluments on that date instead of as on 1.9.88. In Rakesh Kumar Pathak's case the learned Single Judge has considered who is the existing employee. Ultimately, it has been held by the learned Single Judge as under :- “The interpretation given by the respondents for depriving the petitioners of the benefit of the option only on the ground that they were not the existing employees of the Corporation in the cadre of LDC, is not correct and the impugned order dated 14.7.95 in refusing the pay of the petitioners is contrary to the Pay Fixation Regulations, 1989, and, therefore, is set aside. It is ordered that the petitioners would continue to 5 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4953/2008 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. vs. Satyanarain Sewag & Anr. get the pay fixation benefit as has been awarded to them before passing the order dated 14.7.95.” In the case of Bal Mukund Sharma (supra), the facts were taken note of by the Division Bench in para 2 which are as under :- “The writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 23rd May, 1996. The case of the petitioners as set out in the writ petition was that they were initially appointed as Conductors in the pay scale no.7, revised from 490-840 to 880-1680 w.e.f. 1.9.1986. The Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987 came into existence and it is the case of the petitioners that a note was appended in Table No.7 i.e. Pay scale no.7 that the existing employee on reaching scale on Rs.955/- and Rs.1225/- shall get jump and shall be fixed at Rs.1224/- and Rs.1400 respectively on the date of his next annual increment. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to be fixed in the pay scale 880-1680 w.e.f. 1.9.1986 being existing employees as per Rule 5(2) of the Revised Pay Scales and that right cannot be withdrawn or denied by the respondent. Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987 was superseded by Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989 which came into 6 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4953/2008 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. vs. Satyanarain Sewag & Anr. effect from 1.9.1988 and on that date the petitioners were discharging their duties as Conductor and they were entitled to submit their option under Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989 as to whether they intended to continue in the existing pay scale. They were appointed as LDC in November, 1989 but on 1.9.1988 they were discharging the duties as Conductor and the post of Conductor being inter-changeable with LDC, the action of the respondent was arbitrary. The petitioners averred that the action on the part of the respondent in not granting the benefit of Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989 is arbitrary.” It appears from the subsequent facts mentioned in the said judgment that there was one more controversy and that was with respect to the award of selection scales i.e. on completion of service of 9, 18 and 27 years. That issue is not relevant in the present controversy because the employees are not claiming the benefit of 9, 18 and 27 years and their claim is only for getting jump on reaching the pay of Rs.955/- and Rs.1225/-. The Division Bench of this Court in Bal Mukund Sharma's case in para 10 very specifically ordered 7 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4953/2008 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. vs. Satyanarain Sewag & Anr. “We accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Single Judge to the extent it has been directed that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of first selection grade, second selection grade and third selection grade under the circular dated 27.4.1993 from the date of their initial appointment.” This clearly shows that the Division Bench of this Court in Bal Mukund's case allowed the appeal only to the extent of setting aside the benefit which was claimed with respect to the selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service from the initial date of appointment. This judgment nowhere deals with the jump in the salary which is claimed by the present respondents. This Court in writ petition no.3114/2001 (Arun Kumar Mathur's case) held that the controversy is covered by the S.B. judgment of Rakesh Kumar Pathak (supra) and not covered by the S.B. judgment of Bal Mukund Sharma (supra). After going through the above judgments, I am of the view that the present case is covered by the judgment of 8 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4953/2008 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. vs. Satyanarain Sewag & Anr. Rakesh Kumar Pathak (supra) and not covered by the Division Bench judgment of Bal Mukund Sharma (supra). In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya