IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3024 of 2001 (S/S) 1. Mahabir Singh S/o Sri Guman Singh Working on the post of Ardali In the office of Civil Judge (Junior Division) New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal 2. Budhi Singh S/o Sri Tentu Singh Working as Messenger in the office of District Judge New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal 3. Bhim Singh S/o Sri More Singh Working as Messenger in the office of District Judge New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal 4. Vishal Mani S/o Sri Srikrishna Working as Messenger in the office of District Judge New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal 5. Manmender Singh S/o Sri More Singh Working as Messenger in the office of District Judge New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal 6. Rekesh Kumar S/o Sri Megh Raj Singh Working as Messenger in the office of District Judge New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal 7. Bhagat Singh Panwar S/o Sri Fateh Singh Panwar Working as Messenger in the office of District Judge New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal … Petitioners Versus 1. Registrar, Uttaranchal High Court at Nainital 2. District Judge, Tehri District Tehri Garhwal 3. Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal 4. Civil Judge ( Junior Division) New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal … Respondents Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondents 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By was of this writ petition a direction has been sought in the nature of certiorari quashing the order 22.01.1998 passed by District Judge, Tehri Garhwal on the report submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. The direction in the nature of mandamus has also been sought directing the respondent No. 2 i.e. District Judge, Tehri Garhwal to extend benefit of selection grade to each of the petitioners as per the Government Order dated 05.02.1997. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are class-IV employees of the Judgeship of Tehri Garhwal. The case of the petitioners were taken into consideration by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal for providing them the benefit of selection grade. The District Jude constituted a committed of C.J.M. and Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tehri Garhwal and entrusted the matter directed them to submit their report. The committee constituted by the order of the learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal thereafter C.J.M. and Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Tehri Garhwal submitted their report on 22.01.1998 stating therein that out of 20 orderlies only 2 persons, namely, Kirti Ram and Jyoti Prasad were entitled to get the benefit of the selection grade of Rs. 775-1025 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal approved the report and directed that the order be passed accordingly. As the petitioners were denied of their benefit for selection grade hence feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order they have filed this writ petition before this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It would be pertinent to quote the Government order dated 05.02.1997 which reads as follows:- ** la[;k ns0 vk0&1&84nl@&12 ¼,e½&95 Izks"kd] Jh fouksn dqekj feRry] izeq[k lfpo foRr] 3 mRrj izns’k 'kklu A lsok esa] leLr foHkkxk/;{k ,oa izeq[k dk;kZy;k/;{k] mRrj izns’kA foRr ¼osru vk;ksx½ vuqHkkx&1 y[kuÅ fnukad 5 Qjojh] 1997 fo"k; %& le;eku osrueku dh Lohd`frA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;d 'kklukns’k la[;k cs0vk0&1&166@nl&12¼,e½@95 fnukad 8 ekpZ] 1995 ds vkaf’kd la’kks/ku esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd jkT;iky egksn; mDr 'kklukns’k fnukad 8 ekpZ 1995 ds izLrj&1¼2½ rFkk izLrj&1¼3½ dks fuEuor~ izfrLFkkfir fd;s tkus dh lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSA ¼2½ ,sls deZpkjh ftuds iqujhf{kr osrueku dk vf/kdre :0 3500@& rd gS vkSj tks lEcfU/kr in ij fu;fer gks pqds gS] mudh tc 6 o"kZ dh larks"ktud lsok lsysD’ku xzsM ds ykHk dh frfFk dks lfEefyr djrs gq, dqy 14 o"kZ dh iw.kZ gks tkrh gS] izksUufr dk vxyk osrueku oS;fDrd :Ik ls vuqeU; fd;k tk;A oS;fDrd izksUur osrueku nsus ds fy, lsysD’ku xzsM ds ykHk ds vUrxZr ,d osruo`f) dh 6 o"kZ dh larks"ktud lsok vfuok;Z gSA gSA fdUrq lsysD’ku xzsM ds ykHk dh lsok x.kuk gsrq iwoZ esa blds vUrxZr ;fn 10 o"kZ dh lsok ds vk/kkj ij ,d osruo`f) fey pqdh gS rks ml okLrfod fnukad ls fxuh tk;sxh vkSj mu in/kkjdksa gsrq lsysD’ku xzsM ds ykHk dh lsok dk izfrcU/k 4 o"kZ j[kk tk;sxkA mnkgj.k ds fy, ;fn fdlh in/kkjd dks 10 o"kZ dh larks"ktud lsok ds vk/kkj ij ,d osruo`f) dk ykHk 1 ekpZ]1991 rd fey pqdk Fkk vkSj mldh lsok blds ckn larks"ktud vuojr jgh gS vkSj og fnukad 1 ekpZ]1995 dks fu;fer gS@gks tkrk gS rks 1 ekpZ]1995 dks oS;fDrd izksUur osrueku feysxkA ,ls lacxZ@in ftuds fy, izksUufr dk dksbZ in ugha gS] mudks ml osrueku ls vxyk osrueku ns; gksxkA mnkgj.kLo:Ik ,slk in/kkjd tks iqujhf{kr osrueku :0 1200&2040 esa gS] mls :0 4 1350&2200 dk iqujhf{kr osrueku oS;fDrd osrueku ds :Ik esa ns; gksxkA ¼3½ ,sls deZpkjh ftuds iqujhf{kr osrueku dk vf/kdre :0 3500@& rd gS] tc oS;fDrd :Ik ls vuqeU; izksUur @vxys osrueku esa 5 o"kZ dh fujUrj larks"ktud lsok rFkk dqy 19 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh dj ysrs gSa dks izksUur@vxys osrueku esa osru ml frfFk dks vxys izdze ij fu/kkZfjr dj fn;k tk; vFkkZr~ ml ,d osruo`f) dk ykHk mlh osrueku esa vuqeU; gksxkA fdUrq ;fn fdlh fu;fer in/kkjd dks iwoZ O;oLFkk ds vUrxZr 16 o"kZ dh lsok ds vk/kkj ij oS;fDrd :Ik ls izksUur osrueku@vxyk osrueku igys fey pqdk gS rks ml gsrq Hkh 4 o"kZ dh fujUrj larks"ktud lsok dh x.kuk esa iwoZ esa ftl fnukad ls ;g ykHk feyk gS mls laKku esa fy;k tk,xkA mnkgj.kLo:Ik ;fn in/kkjd dks oS;fDrd izksUur osrueku@vxyk osrueku fnukad 1 Qjojh] 1991 dks fey pqdk Fkk rks 1 ekpZ] 1995 dks mDr O;oLFkk ds v/khu ,d vfrfjDr osruo`f) vuqeU; gksxhA 2& mDr 'kklukns’k fnukad 8 ekpZ] 1995 ds izLrj &1¼4½ esa mfYyf[kr lsok vof/k dks Hkh la’kksf/kr dj ** 6 o"kZ ** ds LFkku ij ** 5 o"kZ ** ,oa ** 26 o"kZ ** ds LFkku ij ** 24 o"kZ fd;k tkrk gSA 3& 'kklukns’k fnukad 8 ekpZ] 1995 mDr le; lhek rd la’kksf/kr le>k tk;A Hkonh;] fouksn dqekj feRry] izeq[k lfpo foRrA ¼lR; izfrfyfi½** In view of the aforesaid Government Order, it is quite clear that the benefit of the selection grade would be accorded to those persons who had already got the benefit of an additional pay scale on account of their satisfactory service for 10 years, but the restrictions of the selection grade would be for further 4 years satisfactory service. In the aforesaid Government Order, it has been made clear that suppose any employee has got the benefit of an additional pay scale on 01.03.1991 and thereafter his service had been found satisfactory for 5 another 4 years then he would be entitled for regularization on 01.03.1995 and he will also get the selection grade w.e.f. 01.03.1995. In view of the aforesaid Government Order, individual cases of the petitioners are to be taken into consideration. The Petitioner No. 1, namely, Mahabir Singh has been denied the benefit of selection grade on the ground that although he was given the benefit of an additional pay scale after completing 10 years satisfactory service on 01.1.1992. But there is an entry in a service record that he was given a warning by the District Judge in the year 1987, hence the service of this employee for 14 years cannot be said to be satisfactory and he is not entitled for getting the selection grade w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The reasons accorded by the Committee in its report dated 22.01.1998, which has been approved by the District Judge does not appear to be convincing and this reason assigned by the committee cannot be said to be made in the light of the Government Order dated 05.02.1997 quoted above. As the petitioner was given the benefit of an additional pay scale on 01.01.1992, therefore, the entry made in his service book in the year 1987 will not be taken into consideration for providing him benefit of selection grade. The order passed by the learned District Judge pertaining to petitioner No. 1 is set aside. Likewise the petitioner No. 2, namely, Budhi Singh was also given the benefit of an additional pay scale on 01.01.1993 after completing his 10 years of satisfactory service and the report shows there was an entry in his service book in the year 1982-83 and again in the year 1992 he was given an entry for being careful in future. Therefore, his service for 14 years cannot be said to be satisfactory. I think, that this petitioner has not also rightly been accorded the benefit of the selection grade by the 6 respondents No. 2. It appears to me that the respondent No. 2 has approved the report submitted by the committee in a mechanical manner. The petitioner No. 3, namely, Bhim Singh has also been accorded the benefit of an additional pay scale on 01.01.1993 after completion of 10 years satisfactory service. As per the report of this petitioner was also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2/- on 25.09.1990. Therefore, he has also not been accorded the benefit of selection grade on this ground that his service for 14 years cannot be said to be satisfactory. The report and the order passed by the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 is liable to be set aside pertaining to this petitioner. The report pertaining to the petitioner No. 4, namely, Vishal Mani is also liable to be set aside as he has been accorded the benefit of an additional pay scale on 01.01.1993 and as per his service record, his work was not found satisfactory in the year 1982-83. This ground is not sufficient to record the reasoning that the services of the petitioner were not found satisfactory for 14 years as he had already been accorded the benefit on 01.01.1992 hence he is also not entitled to get the benefit of the selection grade and the order of respondent No. 2 pertaining to this petitioner is set aside. The petitioner No. 5, naemely, Manmender Singh has also been denied the benefit of selection grade on the ground that although he was accorded the benefit of an additional pay scale vide order dated 01.01.1993 for completing his satisfactory service for 10 years but he was given a warning to improve his conduct in the year 1989-90. The reasoning recorded by the committee and the order passed by the learned District Judge in this regard does not appear to be convincing. As far as the case of petitioner No. 6, namely, Rakesh Kumar is concerned his case appears on different footing. Rakesh Kumar was accorded the benefit of an additional pay scale on completion of 10 years satisfactory service vide order dated 01.01.1993. Although he was imposed a fine of Rs. 5/- on 18.10.1985 but this entry would not affect his case. However, there is an entry in his service book in the year 1995-96 7 by which there is an entry that he should improve his work and on the basis of this entry his service for 14 years was not found satisfactory, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by respondent No. 2 pertaining to petitioner No. 6. Further, in case of petitioner No. 7, namely Bhagat Singh it appears to me that he was also accorded the benefit of an additional pay scale after completing 10 years satisfactory service vide order dated 01.01.1993 and it appears that there is an entry in his service book that he was found indisciplined on 30.02.1992. Therefore, his service for 14 years could not be found satisfactory. The report of committee as well as the order of respondent No. 2 is wrong and liable to be set aside as the service of the petitioner prior to the date of according the benefit of an additional pay scale was found satisfactory. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to get the selection grade after completing of his 14 years of service. In view of the aforesaid reasoning recorded by me, I come to the conclusion that the services of Rakesh Kumar was not found to be satisfactory and he has ritghtly been denied of giving the benefit of selection grade. As far as the other petitioners are concerned, I do not find any justification for not providing the selection grade to them. I accordingly direct respondent No. 2 to accord the benefit of providing the selection grade to petitioners No. 1 to 5 and 7, namely, Mmahabir Singh, Budhi Singh, Bhim Singh, Visham Mani, Manmender Singh and Bhagat Singh respectively with effect from the date they are entitled. As it cannot be said that after they were accorded the benefit of an additional pay scale, their services were not found satisfactory for again four years unless there is an adverse entry in their credit in subsequent four years. As far as the case, of petitioner No. 6 namely, Rakesh Kumar is concerned, I direct that in view of the entry made in his service record in the year 1995-96, the benefit of providing the selection grade to him has rightly been denied. 8 I do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the respondent No. 2 as far as the case of the petitioners No. 6 is concerned, However, I come to conclusion that the impugned order dated 22.01.1998 as far as it relates to the petitioner No. 1 to 5 and 7 deserves to be set aside. Accordingly the petition is partly allowed. The order dated 22.01.1998 as far as it relates to the petitioners No. 1 to 5 and 7 is set aside and the respondent No. 2 is directed to provide the benefit of selection grade to these petitioners from the date they are entitled. The impugned order dated 22.01.1998 pertains to the petitioners No. 6 is confirmed as it requires no interference. However, I direct the learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal to reconsider his matter in case, if it is found that the petitioner No. 6 has been rendering the satisfactory service. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 18.06.2005 ASWAL