CW 679/96-Chandan Singh Chouhan Vs.Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. Judgment dt.3.3.09 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Chandan Singh Chouhan Vs. Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.679/1996 Date of Order : 3rd March, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. S.N. Trivedi for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Singh for the respondents. --------- BY THE COURT :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by Chandan Singh Chouhan, who was initially appointed as Drawing Teacher Grade II in the Education Department and he was selected by the respondent University and was appointed as Photographer-cum-Artist in Botany Department in the pay scale of Rs.150-330 on 22.3.1976. He was confirmed in the said service on 17.6.1978. The cause of action of approaching this Court occurred in the light of representation of the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University made on 3.3.1994 Annex.7 of the writ petition in the light of pay scales revised from time to time and the petitioner claimed that he was assigned the pay scale of 1640-2900 whereas he should have been fixed in the pay scale of 2000-3200 as he was working on the post of Artist in the Botany Department for which there were no further CW 679/96-Chandan Singh Chouhan Vs.Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. Judgment dt.3.3.09 2/7 promotional post available. The petitioner also claimed parity with one Mr. Paras Ram Panwar Artist-cum-Photographer in the same department of Botany, who was allowed selection grade of 2000-3200 vide office order dated 3rd April, 1990 Annex.5 of the writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.N. Trivedi also submitted that the respondent-University of Jodhpur had adopted a resolution of the Syndicate of the University of Jodhpur dated 8th March, 1990 to link the service conditions of the employees of the University of Jodhpur with that of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. This is reflected in same order dated 3rd April, 1990. He, therefore, submitted that after Jai Naraian Vyas University Promotional Pay Scale Rules, 1992 were promulgated and made effective from 1st April, 1991 (Annex.11 on record), the petitioner ought to have been fixed in the pay scale 2000-3200 vide item No.8 of the pay scale given in the said Rules and not in the pay scale of 1640-2900. The slabs of the pay scale which is part of these Rules of 1992 is reproduced herewith for ready reference:- “ S.NO. Existing Pay Scale Promotional Pay Scale 1. 750-940 775-1025 2. 775-1025 880-1250 3. 800-1250 910-1520 4. 910-1520 975-1720 5. 950-1680 1200-2050 6. 975-1720 1200-2050 CW 679/96-Chandan Singh Chouhan Vs.Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. Judgment dt.3.3.09 3/7 7. 1200-2050 1400-2600 8. 1400-2300 (i) 2000-3200 in those cases where 1400-2360 next promotion post is available in the university. 1400-2600 (ii) 1640-2900 in all other cases 9. 1640-2900 2000-3200 10. 2000-3200 2000-3500 2200-4000 Note : If an employee who has been granted Promotional Pay Scale before issue of this order and such scale is higher than that indicated in this para, he will continue to draw pay in such scale as personal to him but the second, third Promotional Pay Scale as the case may be, shall be determined with reference to the pay scales indicated above.” 3. Since the representation of the petitioner was not responded to nor desired relief was granted by the respondent- university, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition in the year 1996 which has come up for hearing only now in the year 2009. The petitioner in the meanwhile has retired on superannuation from service. 4. Mr. P.R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-university submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of 1640-2900 only as per the Rules of 1992 and the pay scale as per clause (i) of item No.8, since no further promotional avenue were available for isolated post of Artist held by the petitioner CW 679/96-Chandan Singh Chouhan Vs.Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. Judgment dt.3.3.09 4/7 in the Botany Department of respondent University, he would be entitled to this only and he cannot be granted pay scale of 2000-3200. He sought to distinguish the case of the Paras Ram Panwar Annex.5 order dated 3rd April, 1990 on the ground that said order was passed prior to coming into force of 1992 Rules w.e.f. 1st April, 1991 and, therefore, notwithstanding the case of Paras Ram Panwar, the petitioner was rightly given the said pay scale of 1640-2900. 5. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds little justification on the part of the respondent university to fix the petitioner in the pay scale of 1640- 2900. Once the respondent University of Jodhpur, which later on came to be known as Jai Narain Vyas University had accorded a higher pay scale of 2000-3200 to the similarly situated person in the same department who were working as Artist-cum-Photographer in the department of Botany namely Shri Paras Ram Panwar merely because the rules of 1992 came into force a while later on 1.4.1991, without altering the order in the case of Paras Ram Panwar so as to bring him at par with the case of the petitioner, similar benefits could not have been denied to the petitioner at all. This was a clear discrimination against the petitioner in the explicit breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. Firstly the pay scale at item No.8 of these Rules itself appears to be incongruous on the face of it. The superior pay scale of 2000-3200 was accorded in those cases where no CW 679/96-Chandan Singh Chouhan Vs.Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. Judgment dt.3.3.09 5/7 promotional post is available in the university whereas lesser pay scale of 1640-2900 was given in all other cases including the cases where no further promotional posts were available to the employee. It should have been rather contrary. The persons with no further promotional avenues could be given the higher pay scale as a matter of incentive to compensate their loss in the form of no further promotion being available. Be that as it may since it is a policy matter and as rightly contended by the respondent university, the Court may not be very much concerned with these policy matters about fixation of pay scales for different categories of employees in respondent university, this Court does not make any further comment upon that. However, that does not justify at all, the non-grant of pay scale of 2000-3200 to the petitioner who was similarly situated to the person involved in Annex.5 order dated 3rd April, 1990 namely Pasras Ram Panwar who was also working as Artist-cum-Photographer in the same department of Botany in the same university. The petitioner was also admittedly working in the isolated post of Artist-cum- Photographer in the same department. He claimed the parity with the said person Shri Paras Ram Panwar in his representation dated 31.12.1994 Annex.7 upon completion of 18 years of his service. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-university has not been able to point out any distinction in the case of the petitioner from the case of the said person Paras Ram Panwar except the water CW 679/96-Chandan Singh Chouhan Vs.Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. Judgment dt.3.3.09 6/7 shed of coming into force of 1992 rules w.e.f. 1.4.1991. This, in the opinion of this Court, could not operate to the prejudice of the petitioner, if his case was otherwise comparable and stood on the same footing as that of Paras Ram Panwar. Both these persons by now having apparently retired from job with the obvious anomaly in the respective pay scale. Shri Paras Ram ending at the pay scale of 2000-3200 and whereas the petitioner ending at the pay scale of 1640-2900, this anomaly deserves to be removed by issuing appropriate directions to the respondents. 7. Consequently this writ petition is allowed and the respondent university is directed to fix the petitioner in the pay scale of 2000-3200 w.e.f. 1st May, 1994 against the pay scale of 1640-2900 in which he was fixed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential revision and fixation and the arrears of the pay on account of this revised fixation along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum throughout from the date such revised pay would have been payable to him till the actual date of payment to him. The said arrears and interest may be computed on the part of the respondent university within a period of three months from today and the arrears may be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months, failing which the respondent university shall further pay a cost of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner as litigation expenses. The petitioner is also entitled to avail the consequential benefits in his pensionary benefits. CW 679/96-Chandan Singh Chouhan Vs.Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. Judgment dt.3.3.09 7/7 [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.4 babulal/-