SBCWP NO.2709/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2709/1997. Umar Daraz Khan alias U.D. Khan Versus Rajasthan Agricultural University & Anr. Date of Order:- March 16, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Amin Ali for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Mathur for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15/18.6.1996 (Ann.1) by which, Selection Scale granted to him vide order dated 31/7/1992 (Ann.7) w.e.f. 25/1/1992 in the pay scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000 was changed to 2000- 3500. 2) Shri Amin Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has wrongly been granted the pay scale of 2000- 3500 as he was entitled to Selection Scale of pay of 2200-75-2800-100-4000 on completion of 9 years of service which was granted to him earlier by the respondents on their own. It is SBCWP NO.2709/97. 2 contended that the respondents have wrongly mentioned in their reply to the writ petition that petitioner had already been accorded number of promotions while he was serving the State Government therefore he was not entitled to further Selection Scale. It is contended that petitioner's initial appointment on the post of Lab Assistant and further LDC and further UDC would not be relevant for the purpose of deciding his entitlement for Selection Scale pursuant to the Circular of the State Government dated 25/1/1992 which has been adopted by the respondent-University. It is so because the University has given fresh appointment on 4/11/1965 on the recommendations of the University Selection Committee and he was initially appointed on probation for a period of one year. 3) Shri R.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that even initial appointment of the petitioner with the State Government prior to his joining services with the University would be irrelevant for deciding as to which Selection Scale should be granted to the petitioner. Petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Assistant with the University on SBCWP NO.2709/97. 3 1/8/1959, LDC on 2/3/1964 and UDC on 1/12/1965. The post of UDC came to be redesignated as Accountant and thereafter as Superintendent of Accounts. Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner does not have the eligibility of further promotion and the post on which he was working was an isolated post, his case would be governed by clause-V of the Circular of the State Government dated 25/1/1992. Petitioner was granted pay scale of 2000-60-2300-75-3200 and he was granted corresponding pay scale of 2000-3500 on completion of 9 years of service. 4) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that respondents sought to contest the petition something on wrong premises which they were not understanding. While they have granted Selection Scale to the petitioner on completion of 9 years of service which shall be evident from Ann.7 by which, on completion of 9 years of service on 30/11/1974, he was granted Ist Selection Scale of 2000-3500. Period of 9 years was computed by the respondents by the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1/12/1965. Appointment order dated 4/11/1965 (Ann.2) is on record which SBCWP NO.2709/97. 4 shows that petitioner was given fresh appointment on the recommendations of the University Selection Committee on the post of Accountant and that he was placed on probation for a period of one year. It was a fresh appointment for the purpose that earlier appointment of the petitioner with the State Government had nothing to do with his entitlement to receive Selection Scale. However, at the same time, I find that respondents in the impugned-order dated 15/18.6.1996 (Ann.1) have lightly construed Clause-V of the Circular dated 25/1/1992 when they reduced Selection Scale of the petitioner from 2200-75-2800-100-4000 to 2200-3500 on completion of 9 years. At the same time, however, it is not shown whether petitioner in any manner misrepresented the respondents or obtained the said higher pay scale by reason of misrepresentation or fraud on his part and it was on the part of the respondents themselves on their own, therefore, respondents cannot be permitted to make recovery of all the excess amount paid to the petitioner. 5) In the result, writ petition is allowed. Though the impugned-order dated SBCWP NO.2709/97. 5 15/18.6.1996 (Ann.1) has already proceeded with in so far as it withdrawn first selection scale of 2200-75-2800-100-4000 and instead thereof, granted third selection scale of 2200-3500 however, it is directed that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner if in the meantime he has been paid excess amount on account of the order dated 31/7/1992 (Ann.7) w.e.f. 25/1/1992. Petitioner shall be free to agitate his grievance by way of representation for promotion or grant of second and third Selection Scale on completion of 18 & 27 years of service, as the case may be, before the respondents who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. If recovery has already been made from the petitioner, same shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest @6% per annum. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil