1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2115/2008 Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 10 th December, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Ajeet Singh Shekhawat, for the petitioner. .... Under an order dated 8.5.1985 appointment was given to the petitioner as Class-IV employee on daily rate basis. The pay scale of Rs.750-900 was given to him by the respondents under an order dated 27.12.1991, however, his services were not regularised, thus, he preferred a petition for writ (SBCivil Writ Petition No.2992/1994). In the petition aforesaid it was contended by the petitioner that number of persons junior to him/employed later to him as Class-IV employee stood regularised by ignoring the petitioner's claim. The petition aforesaid came to be disposed of on 4.8.1997 by directing the respondents to extend the same treatment for the petitioner as has been given to his juniors. Accordingly, an order dated 15.4.1998 was passed by the Senior Deputy District Eduction Officer (Elementary Education), Merta City, to allow regular pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 15.11.1990. The grievance of the petitioner is that by an another order dated 24.7.1998, respondent District 2 Education Officer (Secondary-I), Nagaur withdrew the order dated 15.4.1998. It is also pointed out by counsel for the petitioner that regular pay scales granted to certain other similarly situated employees were also withdrawn by the respondents by the orders of similar nature and those orders have already been set aside by this Court in SBCivil Writ Petition No.2415/2000, decided on 23.5.2001. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not at all disputed that in compliance of the directions given by this court on 4.8.1997 the respondents allowed regular pay scales to the petitioner w.e.f. 15.11.1990 under the order dated 15.4.1998. It is also not in dispute that the same benefit was extended to certain other similarly situated persons and that was also withdrawn by the respondents. In a petition for writ preferred by those employees the order withdrawing the grant of regular pay scale from the year 1990 was declared illegal and the order passed by the learned Single Judge also stood affirmed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench while examining the issue in DBCivil Special Appeal No.477/2003, State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Kanmal Sharma & Ors., decided on 15.7.2003, held as follows:- 3 “It appears that some of the senior appointees were not parties to the original writ petition and they filed a writ petition only after earlier writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. In the subsequent writ petition (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2992/94) the petitioners claimed that they were appointed in temporary capacity earlier to the said petitioners of writ petition No.5381/1990 and, therefore, they stand on a better footing than their juniors. Accordingly, they prayed that they be regularized with effect from the year 1990. The learned Single Judge on 4th August, 1997 while allowing the writ petition, directed the appellants to accord the same treatment to the respondents as was given to their juniors under then orders passed in writ petition No.5381/1990. Pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants vide order dated 19th March, 1998 regularised the services of the respondents with effect from the date their juniors were regularized the services of respondents with effect from the date their juniors were regularized and they were given consequential benefits of salary etc. Subsequently, the appellants by their order dated 24th August, 1998 modified the earlier order dated 19th March, 1998 as a result of which the services of the respondents were regularized with effect from the date of the filing of the Writ Petition No.2992/94 and not from the date of filing of writ petition No.538/90. As a sequel to the order dated 24th August, 1998 a notice was issued by the appellants to the respondents to show cause as to why excess payment of salary etc. be not recovered from 4 them. Aggrieved by the action of the appellants, the respondents filed a fresh writ petition being Writ Petition No.2414/2000. Allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge was of view that the order dated 4th August, 1997 rendered in Writ Petition No.2992/94 had attained finality and the respondents were to be treated at par with their juniors. The learned Single Judge also referred to the clear stipulation in the order dated 4th August, 1997 that the respondents were to be granted relief from the date their juniors had been granted. We do not find any error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. The rights of the respondents stood crystalised by the order dated 4th August, 1997 rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2992/94. As a consequence of the order, the appellants having correctly understood the import thereof, granted relief and arrears of salary to the respondents with effect from the year 1990. Subsequently, the earlier order dated 4th August, 1997 was modified by the appellants vide their order dated 19th March, 1998. The latter order was clearly contrary to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th August, 1997 and was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge.” In the instant matter too the regular pay scale was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 15.11.1990 under the directions of this Court in SBCivil Writ Petition No.2992/1994. The respondents by acting upon the order aforesaid allowed regular pay scale to the petitioner from the date the same was accorded to the 5 similarly other situated persons. The benefit extended to the petitioner is as per the directions given by this Court and as per the benefits extended to the other similarly situated persons. In view of it, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order dated 24.7.1998 passed by the District Education Officer (Secondary-I), Nagaur, therefore, is declared illegal and same is hereby quashed. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.