1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9003/05 Sher Singh vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 1/4/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajendra Prasad for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the condition contained in order dated 24.3.2004 that the grant of selection scale and revised pay fixation made by that order would be payable to the petitioner only after approval from the headquarters. Petitioner amended the writ petition with permission to also challenge the order dated 9.1.2006 by which his absorption in Motor Transport (Technical) Cadre of the respondents was cancelled. It is contended that petitioner was absorbed in the Motor Transport (Technical) Cadre with one Bhairo Singh. Bhairo Singh was granted benefits of selection scale and revised pay scale in M.T. Cadre on the similar lines on which the orders were passed in favour of the petitioner. However, the respondents 2 subsequently withdrew such benefits of selection scale and revised pay scale in the case of Bhairo Singh and also cancelled his absorption in in M.T. (Technical) Cadre by the same order dated 9.1.2006 which is impugned in the present writ petition. Bhairo Singh approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal which vide its order dated 14.12.2006 quashed the order dated 9.1.2006 cancelling his absorption with M.T. (Technical) Cadre and the order dated 17.1.2006 by which the selection scale and revision of pay so granted to him was withdrawn. Petitioner approached this Court at the stage when the proposal for granting revised pay scale and pay fixation in the M.T. (Technical) Cadre was submitted by the Superintendent, Police Headquarters, Jaipur City but it was not given effect to because the approval was not granted by the Police Headquarters. Learned counsel submitted that the judgement passed by the Tribunal in the case of Bhairo Singh has been implemented by the respondents and he has been made payment of the consequential benefits. Learned counsel also cited the judgement 3 of this Court delivered at the Principal Seat in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6698/2006, Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 1.6.2007 wherein the benefit of selection grade granted to the petitioner was withdrawn deeming him to be a member of M.T. (Technical) Cadre was cancelled. This Court quashed the order of cancellation dated 30.10.2006 and declared him entitled to continue in the selection pay of Rs.5500-9000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has in the meantime prayed for and was allowed to proceed on voluntary retirement in 2007. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition but was not in a position to distinguish the present matter from aforesaid two judgements. From the facts of the present case, it is evident from order dated 21.2.2004, which is on record at Annexure-2 that both Bhairo Singh and petitioner Sher Singh were absorbed in the M.T. (Technical) Cadre by 4 the same order and the order Annexure-6 dated 9.1.2006 which has been challenged by the petitioner after amending the writ petition, also cancelled the absorption of Bhairo Singh and the said order has already been quashed by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 15.12.2006, writ judgement has attained finality. In the result, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The order of cancellation of absorption of petitioner dated 9.1.2006 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant benefit of selection scale to the petitioner deeming him to be member of M.T. (Technical) Cadre on the same lines on which such benefits were granted to Bhairo Singh and Om Prakash in the above referred to cases. Since the petitioner has voluntarily retired, he would be entitled to receive consequential benefits together with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/