1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6024/97 Kailash Narain Natani vs. The Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Date of order : 8/2/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.K. Paliwal for Shri R.A. Katta for the petitioner. Smt. Shweta Pareek for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.1.1993 by which the respondents decided to withdraw the benefit of third selection scale, which was granted to the petitioner by order dated 2.5.1992 on the premise that he had forgone the promotion on the post of Office Superintendent when promoted by order dated 10.11.1989. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 14.5.1993 by which the emoluments paid to the petitioner on account of third selection scale, was ordered to be recovered from him. The order dated 3.1.1997 was also challenged, by which his petition was dismissed by Departmental 2 Settlement Committee. Shri R.K. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the scheme of selection scale, which was notified by the Government of Rajasthan by its Circular dated 25.1.1992 was for the first time adopted by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board vide its Circular dated 6.3.1992. Clause-7 of that scheme for the first time provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the said scheme, if an employee forgoes promotion on issue of order to this effect, he shall not be granted second or third selection grades under this order. The petitioner was promoted on 10.11.1989 and thereafter he was given the benefit of third selection scale vide order dated 2.5.1992. Subsequently the 74th Coordination Committee of the electricity companies in its meeting held on 16.8.2004 clarified with regard to clause-7 of the Circular dated 6.3.1992 that this will not be applicable to the employees who forgoes promotion prior to issue of said Circular and that the second and/or third selection grade to such employees shall not be withdrawn subject to fulfillment of other 3 terms and conditions of the order dated 6.3.1992 and arrears, if any, may be paid. An order to this effect was issued by the Chief Accounts Officers on 17.12.2004, which was produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is taken on record. In view of the above clarification the petitioner could not have been penalised for a scheme which would be promulgated by the respondents on 6.3.1992 containing the stipulation that if he forgoes promotion, he shall be denied benefits flowing from such scheme. If such a provision is made, that should have only prospective application. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.5.1993 is quashed and set aside and the order dated 15.1.1993 is held ineffective as against the petitioner. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of selection scale in terms of the scheme contained in their Circular dated 6.3.1992 ignoring the factum of petitioner's declining the offer of promotion order dated 10.11.1989. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the 4 date its copy is produced before the respondents. However, if any recovery has been made from the petitioner, that amount shall be returned to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/