1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Kailash Dan Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3975/2006 Date of Order : : 06/11/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.M.Bishnoi for Mr.Rakesh Arora, for the petitioner Mr.M.S.Godara for Mr.V.K.Mathur, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders Annexure-5, 6, 7 & 8 dated 9.10.2003, 12.4.2004, 27.6.1994 and 9.1.2004 respectively and also a direction to the respondents to grant selection grades to the petitioner on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service by counting his service with effect from his initial date of appointment i.e. 19.2.1983. 2 It appears from the record that the petitioner initially came to be appointed on the post of Conductor by the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the RSRTC” hereinafter) vide order Anneuxre-1 dated 19th February, 1983 and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner joined his duty on 2nd March, 1983. The petitioner was entitled for first selection grade after completion of 9 years of service w.e.f 2nd March, 1992, however, during that period, the petitioner suffered various punishments and therefore, he was granted first selection grade w.e.f. 24th September, 1999. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material available on record. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 27th October, 1983, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondent-employer against which the petitioner filed a civil suit before the court of Additional Munisif & Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which came to be compromised by the judgment and decree Annexure-3 dated 16th December, 1986 and therefore, the period of absence either on account of termination or absence without leave should be excluded for computing the period of satisfactory service for grant of selection grade. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 recommended for 3 grant of first selection grade in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 25th June, 1996 vide Annexure-5 but instead of granting first selection grade w.e.f. 25th June, 1996 as recommended by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 granted selection scale in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 24th September, 1999. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC employer contended that the petitioner remained absent for a long period and has been visited with punishment of various penalties and, therefore, after excluding that period, the petitioner was entitled for grant of first selection grade w.e.f. 28th November, 1999. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner was initially appointed on 2nd March, 1983 and in normal course the first selection grade was to be available to the petitioner w.e.f. 2nd March, 1992. However, for grant of first selection grade, the service record of last 7 years is to be seen and while examining the service record of last 7 years in respect of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was awarded two punishment of stoppage of annual grade increments on 30th December, 1989 and 20th February, 1990 respectively. So far as second selection grade is concerned, the petitioner was awarded two punishments of stoppage of annual grade 4 increments on 26th October, 1996 and 28th February, 1998 respectively and, therefore, the date of second selection grade was further postponed. It is further submitted that apart from the punishments awarded to the petitioner, he remained absent for 1474 days upto 2nd March, 2001, the date of entitlement of second selection grade after competition of 18 years of service, and therefore, the date of actual entitlement was further postponed by 1474 days. It is also submitted that the respondents vide circular Annexure-R/1 dated 15th May, 2007 imposed a condition that an employee should have earned regular annual increment in the last succeeding years continuously and there should not be any departmental enquiry and criminal case pending against him for the purpose of getting the benefit under the selection grade scheme and in view of the circular dated 15th May, 2007, the petitioner did not fulfill the condition precedent for entitling him the selection scale. It is also submitted that vide circular dated 21st May, 2004, the respondent employer also imposed a condition that punishment of fine awarded to an employee will also postpone entitlement of an incumbent for the purpose of getting benefit under the selection grade scheme. Apart from the punishments statedabove, the petitioner has been awarded several other penalties, which are as under:- 5 “i] Stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 28.11.2001. ii] Stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 29.9.2003 iii] Punishments of fine are as under:- a] Punishment of fine of Rs.2000/- vide order dated 28.11.2001 b] Punishment of fine of Rs.7308 vide order dated 29.9.2003 c] Punishment of fine of Rs.200 vide order dated 30.1.1991 d] Punishment of fine of Rs.680/- vide order dated 26.10.1996 e] Punishment of fine of Rs.2040/- vide order dated 26.10.1996 f] Punishment of fine of Rs.1050 vide order dated 29.9.2003 g] Punishment of fine of Rs.900/- vide order dated 28.11.2001 h] Punishment of fine of Rs.700/- vide order dated 28.11.2001 i] Punishment of fine of Rs.1500/- vide order dated 28.11.2001 j] Punishment of fine of Rs.3542 vide order dated 29.9.2003 k] Punishment of fine of Rs.2000/- vide order dated 24.2.2003 l] Punishment of fine of Rs.1050/- vide order dated 29.9.2003 m] Punishment of fine of Rs.3691/- vide order dated 31.12.2003 n] Punishment of fine of Rs.200/- vide order dated 15.4.2004 o] Punishment of fine of Rs.1069/- vide order dated 13.4.2000.” In the additional affidavit, it has also been stated that 6 the total period of absence upto 3rd March, 2001 comes to 2454 days and if the period of absence is correctly calculated, the petitioner is entitled for first selection grade w.e.f. 28th November, 1999 but erroneously it was earlier recommended by Committee w.e.f. 25th June, 1996 and ultimately, the same was allowed again by committing another mistake w.e.f. 24th September, 1999. Keeping in view the service record as it reflects from the additional affidavit filed by the respondent employer RSRTC and the fact that the petitioner has been visited with various punishments and remained absent for a long period, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief prayed for. The respondents were justified in granting the first selection grade to the petitioner w.e.f. 28th November, 1999 and for further selection scale, the petitioner has to earn satisfactory 9 years of service. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and it is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK