SBCWP No.5364/2000. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5364/2000. Go-Lok Nath Dass Mathur Vs. The Director, Local Bodies Department, Jaipur. Date of order :- November 22, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri H.O.P. Mathur for the petitioner. Shri Gajanand Manav Mishra, Deputy Government Counsel with Ms. Madhu Meena on behalf of Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel. ****** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2000 inter-alia with the prayer that impugned letters dated 22/6/2000, 26/7/2000 and 7/9/2000 be quashed and set-aside and the respondents be directed to give pay scale of 2000-3500 of the post of Revenue Officer-I w.e.f. 1/9/1988. It has further been prayed that respondents be directed to grant enhanced payment of pension on the basis of grant of one additional annual grade increment vide order dated 7/1/2000 (Ann.2) w.e.f. 1/9/1988 granted to the municipal employees on the basis of the acquirement of qualification of Diploma of Local Self Government (L.S.G.D.). It has further been prayed that leave encashment of 138 days of privileged leave as duly SBCWP No.5364/2000. 2 entered in his service book be also ordered to be paid. Shri H.O.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially all those benefits were sanctioned to the petitioner by the Director Local Bodies himself but when the order went to the Municipal Council Sikar for implementation, the accounts clerk raised certain objections which led to withholding of all those benefits which is why petitioner has approached this Court. It is contended that although Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989 were implemented in earlier point of time but in so far as employees of the municipalities in all over Rajasthan is concerned, it came to be implemented somewhat later in point of time. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to the notification of the government dated 10/7/1996 by which, pay scale of the Revenue Officer-I was revised by which, pay scale has been revised from 2000-3200 to 2000-3500 but by subsequent order issued by the Director Local Bodies on 13/12/1996, it was directed that such pay scale would be payable to the government servants w.e.f. 1/9/1988. It is contended that this technical objection was raised before 31/5/1996 when petitioner retired whereas, that order was issued in later point of time on 13/12/1996. Learned counsel also referred to the Circular of the State Government dated 19/7/1982 to argue that one additional annual grade increment was sanctioned to SBCWP No.5364/2000. 3 him on the strength of the earlier order of the government because petitioner had obtained the qualification of L.S.G.D. from O.T.S., Jaipur. In the subsequent order issued by the government on 13/12/1996, it has been provided that two additional annual increments would be payable to the municipal employees on procuring such diploma. Circular further provided that such of the municipal employees, who have already received one annual grade increment on the strength of earlier order dated 19/7/1982, would also be entitled to additional annual grade increment. Order for recovery of amount of one additional annual grade increment was based on the premise that when the Circular dated 13/12/1996 was issued, petitioner already stood retired on 31/5/1996. The third grievance of the petitioner is that originally leave encashment for 138 days of privileged leave was sanctioned to the petitioner on the strength of the entry made in his service book which was duly verified by the accounts clerk and attested by the Commissioner Municipal Council Sikar and sanction which was made by the Director Local Bodies on 26/6/1996 was not implemented because of the objection raised by the accounts clerk. The objection was to the effect that according to the entry made in the service book, 34 days PL was balance in the account of the petitioner towards privileged leave whereas, payment of leave encashment was made to him for 138 days. SBCWP No.5364/2000. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that in so far as two orders of the government i.e. 13/12/1996 are concerned, that were applicable only to such municipal employees, who were in-service as on the date of issuance of such orders and not on the date of the order of the earlier date. Since petitioner had already retired on 31/5/1996, the benefits of those Circulars cannot be granted to him. Learned counsel also argued that computation of number of days of privileged leave is a disputed question of fact and therefore this Court may not entertain this writ petition on this ground. Writ petition therefore be dismissed. This is indeed a very shocking state of affairs where a retired government servant has been made to suffer for no fault of his and even after the sanction orders having been issued in his favour by the Director Local Bodies, accounts clerk in the Municipal Council Sikar installed implementation by a reason which was based on misconstruction and misinterpretation of the relevant circulars of the government. Circular No.Pa-1/Gha/SME/DLB/93/4493 dated dated 13/12/1996 clearly provided that the revised pay scales of 1989 would be effective even in the municipalities w.e.f. 1/9/1988. This date admittedly was much prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner. There is no reason why petitioner should have been denied the benefit of revised pay scales of SBCWP No.5364/2000. 5 1989 w.e.f. 1/9/1988 when he was in service. Sanction order was rightly issued by the Director Local Bodies on that count vide order dated 26/6/1996 (Ann.3). Another Circulars of the government dated 7/1/2000 (Ann.2) and 10/7/1996 (Ann.4) were regarding two annual grade increments to the municipal employees, who have obtained the diploma of L.S.G.D. It has provided that those of the municipal employees, who have already been given one annual grade increment from 19/7/1982 earlier on the strength of the order dated 8/1/1971 (Ann.1), would also be entitled to one more/additional annual grade increment. This clearly makes it evident that additional annual grade increment was intended to be given to those, who have already been granted one annual grade increment on the strength of earlier circular. In fact, petitioner had been paid one additional annual grade increment earlier vide order dated 8/1/1971 on the strength of existing instructions but for second however, annual grade increment was made admissible to him when he acquired the diploma of L.S.G.D. vide letter dated 19/7/1982 itself. That apart, this circular also provided that those municipal employees shall be entitled to one additional annual grade increment after obtaining said diploma. Matter remained pending because clarification was sought from the government as to from which date such additional increment was to be provided. In the present case, petitioner was entitled to additional increment to be paid to him SBCWP No.5364/2000. 6 from the earlier date to 1/9/1988, the date on which the revised pay scales of 1989 were enforced. Director Local Bodies was convinced regarding admissibility of such additional annual grade increment to him. The circular dated 7/1/2000 (Ann.2) also faced the same fate. There was no reason also to withhold the payment of leave encashment of 138 days. Respondents have accepted the entries made in the service book which was duly verified by the accounts clerk and attested by the various municipalities including Municipal Council Sikar. Such payments should not have been withheld for more than a decade. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioner made out not only a case for issuance of writ of mandamus but also for a cost in his favour for withholding of payment by the respondents. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The letters dated 22/6/2000 (Ann.10), 26/7/2000 (Ann.11) and 7/9/2000 (Ann.12) are quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to implement the orders 7/1/2000 (Ann.2), 26/6/1996 (Ann.3) and 10/7/1996 (Ann.4) issued by the Director Local Bodies and pay to the petitioner arrears together with interest @9% p.a. Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost of Rs.2500/- in addition to payment of interest. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy thereof is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SBCWP No.5364/2000. 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.5382/2000. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5364/2000. Go-Lok Nath Dass Mathur Vs. The Director, Local Bodies Department, Jaipur. Date of order :- November 22, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri H.O.P. Mathur for the applicant-petitioner. Shri Gajanand Manav Mishra, Deputy Government Counsel with Ms. Madhu Meena on behalf of Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel. ****** BY THE COURT:- Consequent upon disposal of the main petition, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly rejected. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil