State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Shankar Lal Parmar

The controversy has been pending before this Court for quite some time, therefore, we deem it fit to decide it, by a reasoned judgment to iron out the creases and clear the clouds.

4. It is relevant to mention here that a Special Leave Petition filed by the State, against one Bheem Singh was dismissed by this Court on 06.01.2010 on the ground of delay. The Order reads as under:

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits.

9. To remove the doubts which cropped up on account of the Circular dated 23.07.1992, which created confusion and doubts in the mind of the Heads of Department, as to whether an employee would be automatically entitled to receive the Selection Grades, after completion of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service, irrespective of his earning censure or other such remarks, another Office 7 Order/letter dated 24.07.1995 was sent, by the Finance Department (Rules Division) to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan. The relevant portion thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:

There is neither any ambiguity nor any doubt in the same.

This is not permissible in the service jurisprudence and is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

20. It is settled principle of law that "like should be treated alike". This is the mandate and command of Article 14 of the Constitution, which we are required to follow. In any case, those who have earned censure cannot be treated at par with those who have had a clean service record. As 14 mentioned hereinabove, an employee with blemished, polluted, tainted, unclean service record cannot be equated with other employee who has enjoyed clean, unblemished, unpolluted, untainted and impeccable service record. Such differentiation would not be violative of Article 14 while dealing with the principles of equality.

(i) Equality before Law

Thus, according to us, it would clearly fall in the category of reasonable classification which is permissible in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution and also on account of various judgments pronounced by this Court on this topic from time to time.

23. Thus, in our opinion, there is a basic and fundamental difference between the two categories of the employees.

Appellant-State was fully justified in issuing the subsequent Office Order/ letter dated 24.07.1995, putting all controversies at rest. We do not find that any case of discrimination has been made out against the Respondents/ Employees. Subsequent Office Order/ letter cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional or without authority of law. We find merit in the arguments advanced by Dr. Manish Singhvi, Advocate for the Appellants and thus, have no hesitation in allowing these Appeals. It is also pertinent to mention here that Respondents/Employees had not challenged the subsequent Office Order/ letter dated 24.07.1995, as being illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary or without jurisdiction. As long as this Office Order/ letter holds good, it is to be implemented in the same manner and spirit in which it was issued.

24. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the learned Judges of the Division Benches cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the same are hereby set aside and quashed.

(iii)The employees who have earned censure in the past years for their service record will not be entitled to be granted `Selection Grade' alongwith those who have a clean and unblemished record. They would be granted `Selection Grade' only one year thereafter.

(iv) Any employee who has been promoted before the said period would not be entitled for the grant of `Selection Grade'.

25. With the aforesaid direction, this and the connected appeals are allowed. Impugned orders as mentioned hereinabove are set aside. Parties to bear their respective costs.