IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4078/1995. : : Babu Lal Gupta Vs. Raj.Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. : : Date of Order 4.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.M.L.Gupta for the petitioner. Mr.Brij Sharma for Mr.R.B.Mathur for the respondent. Mr.Aklesh Jain, Dy.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment of Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal dated 23.3.1995. The Tribunal by the said judgment dismissed the appeal preferred by the writ-petitioner herein, in which he had prayed for a direction to the respondents to step up his pay at par with that of his junior Babulal Sharma at Rs.1180/- as on 15.11.1983 giving him benefit of staping up envisaged in Rule 32 of Rajasthan Service Rules. Shri M.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Tribunal has illegally dismissed his appeal by misconstruing Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Cooperative (Class-I) Service Rules, 1955 (for short “the Rules of 1955”) and the Government notification dated 5.4.1977 to hold that the cadre of Inspector (Audit) Grade-I and Inspector (Executive) Grade-I are different. It was contended that this issue was already set at rest by the judgment of this Court in Beney Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan : WLN (UC) 1980, Pg.481, wherein it was held that cadre of Inspector Grade-II in Cooperative Department, whether executive or audit, is one cadre and the post of Inspector Grade-I as per Rule 29 (1) being an promotional post from that cadre, has to be treated as one cadre. Learned counsel made reference to the order of the Registrar dated 10.2.1983 (Annexure-4) and the combined provisional seniority list enclosed therewith to show that the respondents have been treated the Inspector (Executive) and Inspector (Audit) as members of one cadre, even after amendment of Rule 6. He also made reference to large number of other orders issued by the respondents, the details of which have been enumerated in para No.10 (d) and contended that the respondents by issuing theses orders have been transferring the incumbents posted as Inspector (Audit) to the post of Inspector (Executive) and vice versa. Learned counsel also referred to the examples of Shri K.K.Sharma, Shri K.K.Tiwari, Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Shri Rama Shankar Sharma and Shri Mahadev Prasad Sharma, who were in similar circumstances given the benefit of stepping up of pay with reference the Rule 32 of RSR and argued that similar treatment ought to be given to the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the prayer and the judgment of the Tribunal be quashed and set aside. Shri Aklesh Jain, learned Deputy Government Counsel however opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal because the petitioner could not claim parity with either Shri Pooran Mal Gupta or Mr.Babu Lal Sharma both of whom are Inspectors (Executive) whereas the petitioner was Inspector (Audit). It was contended that the Government vide notification dated 5.4.1977 created two separate cadres of Inspector (Executive) and Inspector (Audit) and the parity i.e. being claimed is w.e.f. 5.11.1983, which is subsequent to the date of amendment in Rule 6 (supra). It was contended that judgment of this Court in Baney Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the present case because that judgment was rendered when the aforesaid amendment was not made. Learned counsel therefore prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment as also the other documents forming part of the record. What is evident from the record is that while the petitioner has specifically asserted with reference to large number of orders passed by the respondents themselves that Inspectors working in Audit Wing of the Cooperative Department have been transferred to the Executive Wing and similarly Inspectors working in the Executive Wing have been transferred to Audit Wing even after amendment of Rule, 6 there is no denial from the side of the respondents of this fact. The petitioner has referred to the order dated 18.1.1985 whereby one Shri K.K.Sharma Inspector (Executive) Grade-I was allowed to take benefit of stepping up under Rule 32 of RSR w.e.f. 15.7.1978 comparing his pay with a junior Shri Prabhakar Arya, who was Inspector in Audit Wing similarly reference has been made to the case of Shri K.K.Tiwari Inspector (Executive), who claimed parity with Shri Kaptan Singh Inspector (Audit) Grade-II and was allowed such benefit under Rule 32 by order dated 14.11.1988. Examples of Sushil Kumar Sharma, Rama Shanker Sharma and Mahadev Prasad Sharma of Inspectors (Executives) were given, who claimed parity with that of his junior Kaptan Singh Inspector (Audit) Grade-II and all were denied such benefits. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have not denied these specific averments made by the petitioner. The stand of the respondents that these are two different carders or for their administrative purposes treated as different carders stands belied from their own order dated 10.4.1983, by which a provisional seniority list of permanent/temporary Inspectors Grade-I, regardless to the fact that whether they were working in Executive or Audit Wing was circulated. In this list, the name of the petitioner Shri Babu Lal Gupta appears at Serial No.282 whereas Shri Babulal Sharma appears at Serial No.365. It is evident that even if the respondents for administrative convenience created two Wings within the department but it is writ large that the respondents always had practice of inter-transfer between the two Wings and that continued even after amended in Rule 6. Obviously, an inference should therefore arise that they have been treating it as one cadre. This is fortified from their own order showing a common seniority list. The petitioner has in rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition has rebutted the averments made by the respondents that the ratio of the judgment in Baney singh (supra) would not apply to the present case. In my considered view he is justified in so saying because one who is posted as Inspector (Audit) and can also be posted as Inspector (Executive). The common seniority list also indicates that the petitioner's stands at much higher than the aforesaid Babulal Sharma. Even though it may be true that there was a requirement of preparing two separate seniority list consequent upon amending in Rule 6 but that stage was not yet attained till the common seniority list dated 10.4.1983 was issued by the respondents and the petitioner is claiming parity on the basis of his initial date of appointment vis-a-vis the date of initial appointment of aforesaid two persons w.e.f. 15.11.1983. Nothing has been brought on record that on any date before 15.11.1983, the exercise of preparing separate seniority list or giving effect to the amended Rule 6 creating two separate cadres of Inspector (Audit) Grade-I or Inspector (Executive) Grade-II had been completed so as to give effect to the aforesaid rule. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the writ- petitioner. The petitioner has make out a case for direction to the respondents in terms prayed for. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 23.3.1995 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Respondents are directed to step up pay of the petitioner equal to that of his junior Babulal Sharma and re-fix his pay @ Rs.1180/- w.e.f. 15.11.1983 by giving him benefit of Rule 32 of RSR and grant him consequential benefits with interest @ 6% per annum. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.2.