1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5127/2002. : : Dr. N.L.Agarwal Vs. Raj. Agricultural University, Bikaner : : Date of Order 20.2.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. J.K.Singhi for the petitioner. Mr. R.A.Katta for the respondent (s). This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.3.2000. It has been prayed that respondents be directed to amend and modify the said order by fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs.17,300/- and treat his date of promotion from 17.10.1993 and accordingly grant him annual grade increments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Professor of 5.5.1996 on regular basis. The respondents have granted the pay scale of Professor and promotion on that post to two of the juniors namely; Dr. R.C.Gupta as Professor w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and Dr. Arvind Kumar as Professor w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 2 They have been granted such promotions under the Ex-cadre Personnel Promotion Scheme notified by Government vide order dated 2.12.1996. It was argued that the respondents have fixed his aforesaid two juniors in the pay scale of Professor from an earlier date thus resulting in a situation where they would be getting higher pay scale than the petitioner despite being juniors. It was submitted that the respondents have done so because the petitioner did not appear for interview for selection under the Ex-cadre Personnel Promotion Scheme whereas there was no requirement for the petitioner to appear because he has already been appointed on regular basis on the post of Professor on 5.5.1996. Learned counsel referring from the order of Government dated 2.12.1996 submitted that in that very order, it was provided that out of 41 Associates Professors, 18 persons who have been selected as regular Professors will receive only notional benefits till their regular selection as the Professor will deem to be reverted as Associate Professor. The interview was thus an empty formality because as per the Government order itself, it was pre-decided for such of the persons who were already selected Professors on regular selection that they would be 3 granted only notional benefits treat their regular selection for Professor. Shri R.A.Katta, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner avoided to appear before the interview at his own peril whereas the aforesaid two persons, who were his juniors, did appear. It was argued that both Dr. Arvind Kumar and Dr.R.C.Gupta were promoted as Professors under Ex-cadre Personnel Promotion Scheme. The petitioner was also called for attending the interview but he refused to attend such interview. It should be noted that Dr. Arvind Kumar and Dr. R.C. Gupta were promoted as Professors w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and 1.1.1996 respectively which would entitle them to pay scale of Rs.16,400-22,400/- from that date whereas the petitioner was appointed as Professor much subsequently on 5.5.1996. Petitioner is questioning correctness of pay scale of aforesaid two persons but he by himself absented in the interview and forfeited his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that at the time when his regular promotion has been made, claim of aforesaid two persons was also considered and they were not adjudged suitable for 4 promotion. They cannot be, therefore, better right than the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that there is not denial to the fact that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis by order dated 5.5.1996. Aforesaid two persons also faced the selection for regular promotion, but they were not selected. The order of Government dated 2.12.1996 has given a solution for such persons, which is as under :- “Out of 41 entitled Associate Professors, 18 persons who have been selected as on regular Professors will receive only notional benefits till their regular selection as Professor, after which these posts will deemed to be reverted to the post of Associate Professors”. It would be thus evident that persons already selected were not required to be again selected and the Government was cognizant of this fact even when 41 posts were created under the aforesaid scheme. Even if what is contended is accepted that the petitioner should have appeared before the Interview Board for formality sack, the 5 fact still remain that he could not be re-selected to the post of Professor although he would be entitled to notional benefits. Petitioner by way of abundant caution considering that his appearance for interview would not be detrimental to his interest because he has already been selected on regular basis did not appear, but nevertheless the resultant situation if the juniors are granted pay scale of Professor w.e.f. 1.1.1996, he would also be entitled to get his pay step up to that even as per next below rule. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to step up pay of the petitioner at par with his abovenamed juniors with effect from the same date on which any of above juniors were earlier treated as promoted on the post of Professor, on notional basis only, till his regular selection as Professor. Petitioner in terms of stipulation contained in Government order dated 2.12.1996 would also entitle to consequential benefits flowing from the implementation of this order together with interest @ 6% per annum. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-Item No.65. 6