SBCWP NO.2752/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2752/1997. Krishan Kumar Pareek & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- March 5, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri A.K. Bhargava for the petitioners. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel. Shri R.M. Jain for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition was filed by the petitioners way back in the year 1997. They are aggrieved by non grant of pay scale of Rs.1400- 2600 (Scale No.12) w.e.f. 1/9/1988 when the revised pay scales of 1988 were promulgated. 2) Contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that Salt Inspectors were throughout being paid at par with the Inspector (Industries) in Pay Scale No.10 in the revised pay scales which were brought into force from time to time. Their pay was revised in the revised pay scales of 1989. Inspectors (Industries) who were receiving their pay in Pay Scale No.10 (1120-2050) in the year 1987 were granted Pay Scale No.11 (1140-2250). Similarly, Industries Extension SBCWP NO.2752/97. 2 Officers were also being paid in Pay Scale No.10 (1120-2050) like the petitioners in the year 1987 were granted Pay Scale No.11 (1140-2050) in the revised pay scales of 1988 w.e.f. 1/4/1988. Subsequently, under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Rules) 4th Amendment Rules, 1988, even these pay scales were further revised twice in favour of Inspector (Industries) and Industries Extension Officer from 1400-2300 to 1400-2600. It is contended that when petitioners were throughout being paid in the same pay scale of pay in which the salary was paid to the Inspector (Industries) and Industries Extension Officer, there was no reason not to revise the pay scale of the petitioners at par with what was paid to them. Learned counsel submitted that when the writ petition was filed by the petitioners in the year 1997, respondents in para 4 of their reply submitted that representations of the petitioners have been forwarded to the State Level Committee constituted vide order dated 26/8/1997. Till date, no final view of the Committee was communicated to the petitioners by the respondents. Learned counsel in support of his argument has relied on the judgment of this Court in Rajasthan Draftsman Council Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.4657/96) decided on 29/8/1997. 3) This matter when it was last listed on 16/2/2010, it was adjourned with direction that SBCWP NO.2752/97. 3 name of Shri Anant Bhandari who appears for the Department of Industries be shown in the cause list. Today, Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel appears and prays for adjournment but this matter was heard on merits. 4) Even though representations of the petitioners were forwarded to the experts which is like equivalent committees constituted by the respondents vide order dated 31/10/1988 but since then committees did not recommend further for pay revision onwards in the cases of Salt Inspectors, Inspector Weight & Measures, Inspector Handloom and Inspector Handloom Audit. Another committee constituted to look into the matter also did not did favourable recommending case of the petitioners. Lastly, the State Level Committee was constituted on 26/8/1987. 5) It is the prerogative of the rule making authority to decide as to what pay scale be paid to which post and this should depend on the structure of the cadre which in turn may be dependent on most of considerations such as the requisite qualification, eligibility for recruitment, experience etc. This Court cannot in the scope of writ jurisdiction direct the respondents to prescribe pay scale of the petitioners. SBCWP NO.2752/97. 4 6) In the circumstances when the respondents themselves have not taken final view on the demand of the petitioners and referred the matter for recommendation of the State Level Committee now to look into the merits of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with directions to the respondents to convey the petitioners regarding the final view taken by them on the basis of the recommendations of the State Level Committee within a period of six months from the date copy of this order is placed before them. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil