1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1274/2005 (Sita Ram Bhati Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 5.8.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure-6) and further prayed for directions to the respondents to give effect to the recommendation of respondent No.3 for fixation of the pay of petitioner and for granting benefit of 27 years of service to him w.e.f. 4.9.1994. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Electrician Gr.II on 4.9.1976 and further promoted to the post of Road Light Inspector vide order dated 14.8.1982. Thereafter, second selection scale was allowed to the petitioner 2 after completion of 18 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200/- on 4.9.1994. The petitioner became entitled for third selection scale after completion of 27 years of service w.e.f. 4.9.2003, therefore, the case of the petitioner for grant of selection scale in the revised pay scale of Rs.8000- 13500 was sent for sanction to the State Government by the respondent – U.I.T., Jodhpur. The case of the petitioner is that initially second selection scale was allowed to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200/- and the same was revised as a consequence of application of revised pay scale rules in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- in which the petitioner was getting his salary. The case of the petitioner is that for grant of third selection scale, he was entitled to get selection scale in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500, therefore, his case was recommended to the State Government for granting sanction. In response to the recommendation made by U.I.T., Annexure-6 dated 22.11.2004 was passed by the Assistant Secretary, Urban Development Department in which it was ordered that petitioner is not entitled to get pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- on the ground that earlier the pay-scale was not granted in accordance with the provisions of selection scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the State Government has no jurisdiction 3 to interfere in the case of any benefit granted to the employees of U.I.T. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards Section 25 in which power of appointment is left with the UIT itself. There is no provision to get any sanction from the State Government and it is for the U.I.T. to decide entitlement of an employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention towards para-10 of reply filed by the respondents submits that U.I.T. is not disputing this position and it is specifically stated that the power of fixation of pay, appointment etc and grant of selection scale is vested with the U.I.T. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order Annexure-6 dated 22.11.2004 passed by State Government is totally without jurisdiction. Therefore, U.I.T. administration has jurisdiction to decide the entitlement of the employees working in the U.I.T. as per rules. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the powers with regard to fixation of pay, appointment and selection scale of the employees is vested in the U.I.T. but the State Government can also give any direction to the U.I.T for making corrections in the fixation which is made wrongly. It is also submitted by the respondents that the matter is still pending with regard to entitlement of the petitioner with the UIT, therefore, this writ petition 4 is pre-mature. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. I have perused entire record of the case and considered the arguments made by both the parties. First of all, in this case, of course, the State Government can interfere in the functioning of the U.I.T., if rule permits. In this regard Section 25 of the UIT Act reads as under: “25. Power of appointment etc. - Subject to the provisions of section 24 and to any rules for the time being in force, the power of appointing and granting leave to officer and servants of the Trust and censuring, reducing, suspending or dismissing them for misconduct and dispensing with their services for any reason other than misconduct, shall be vested - (a) in the case of officers and servants drawing such monthly salary as may be specified by the State Government for each Trust, in the Chairman, and (b) in other cases, in the Trust; Provided that, in the case of Government servants whose services are lent to the Trust, the power of granting leave only will so vest and the other powers specified in this section will be exercisable by the State Government or by an appropriate authority of the State Government upon a compliant made by 5 the Trust in that behalf or otherwise: [Provided further that officer may be appointed to administrative and technical posts in the Trust by the State Government either from amongst Staff holding posts in the Trust with nomenclature and duties corresponding to posts in a department of the Government from which promotions to similar posts are made from amongst officers posts encadred in the Rajasthan Municipal Services, or the State services, and the strength of these services shall stands increased accordingly, if necessary.]” From perusal of Section 25 it is clear that it is nowhere stated that even for grant of selection scale or fixation of pay, the State Government can issue any direction to the U.I.T., of course, if any dispute arises, the U.I.T. can ask for clarification to the State Government. Here in this case, the entitlement of the petitioner with regard to third selection scale is pure and simple administrative action of the U.I.T. and the U.I.T., is to pass orders after application of mind and the orders are required to be passed in accordance with the Rules. When earlier second selection scale was granted to the petitioner by the U.I.T. in accordance with the rules then it is only U.I.T. who can rescind or correct, if any mistake is committed while granting second selection scale. Therefore, in my opinion, the interference of State Government is totally 6 unwarranted in this case because U.I.T. has sent communication of sanctioning particular pay scale of selection scale but instead of granting the same, the State Government has passed an order for taking second selection scale back without any reason and without any notice to the petitioner, which is not permissible under the law. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure-6) is set aside and the respondents U.I.T. is free to decide claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of correct second and third selection scale after providing opportunity to the petitioner. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun