SBCWP NO.2612/96. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2612/1996. Mohammad Sani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : August 6, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Govind Gupta for the petitioner. Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharmna, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 1996 with the prayer that respondents be directed to pay him actual benefits and arrears thereof in terms of his revised pay and revised LPC. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was originally working on the post of Work Charge Lab Assistant. He was declared surplus the Work SBCWP NO.2612/96. 2 Charge Establishment some time in the year 1992 and was absorbed in the Medical & Health Department on the post of LDC on 2/6/1992. At the time when he was declared surplus, pay scale of the Lab Assistant was different. Absorption of the petitioner was made on the post of LDC 16/10/1992, which carried the equivalent pay scale. Subsequently however the government vide notification dated 16/4/1994 revised the pay scale of Lab Assistant as Rs.1200-2050. Petitioner was paid arrears in terms of the pay scale from his Work Charge Department. His revised LPC was also forwarded to the Medical and Health Department. Medical and Health Department did not pay him actual benefits for the intervening period. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to certificate of revised increments which is on record as Annexure-3 which clearly indicates that pay of the petitioner was revised from time to time consequent upon revision of his pay scale of the post of Lab Assistant and in the pays scale of Rs.1200-2050. Lastly, salary SBCWP NO.2612/96. 3 of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.1320 on 1/9/1990. It is therefore prayed that writ petition be allowed. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that when petitioner was absorbed in the Medical and Health Department, he was provided with the pay protection and accordingly he was paid the same pay scale while working on the post of LDC. If subsequently there was any change in the pay scale of Lab Assistant, he was provided pay protection but not paid arrears. Learned counsel submitted that revised pay scale of the work charge Lab Assistant was not clearly indicated. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that petitioner was declared surplus at a time when the pay scale of the post of Lab Assistant was not there. Pay scale was revised by the government vide notification dated 16/4/1994 and the revision was made effective SBCWP NO.2612/96. 4 from 1/9/1988. Petitioner was thus still working for the intervening period from 1/9/1988 and therefore he was paid arrears and his pay was revised accordingly. Obviously therefore when petitioner was declared surplus and absorbed and taken in the service of the Medical and Health Department, he should not be paid salary lesser than what he was receiving in the parent department where he was declared surplus. Respondents although rightly protected his pay in the Medical and Health Department but he cannot be deprived of the actual benefits of the period w.e.f. 2/6/1992 till revision of pay i.e. 16/4/1994 when he was absorbed till revisioin took place from the post of Work Charge Lab Assistant as this revision was actually made effective from 1/9/1998 and on that basis he was actually paid arrears for the time he served the Work Charge Department. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner actual arrears for the SBCWP NO.2612/96. 5 difference of salary from the date of his absorption i.e. 2/6/1992 till revision of pay i.e. 16/4/1994. Arrears shall be paid to him @6% p.a. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil