Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS .versusSHANKAR LAL PARMAR
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 733
- Decided
- 30 September 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
The 1995 Office Order validly defers the grant of Selection Grade by one year for employees who have received a censure, constituting a reasonable classification under Article 14, and the State is not entitled to recover any amounts already paid.
Summary
The State of Rajasthan issued an Office Order in 1992 granting Selection Grades to Class IV and subordinate employees after 9, 18 and 27 years of service, provided their service record was satisfactory. A 1992 circular initially held that a censure would not affect eligibility, but a later Office Order in 1995 clarified that any employee who had received a censure would have the grant of Selection Grade deferred by one year. Several employees who had been granted Selection Grades despite having a censure were asked to repay the amounts, leading to writ petitions and the landmark Devi Singh judgment, which held that once a Selection Grade is granted it cannot be withdrawn without a show‑cause notice. The Supreme Court examined whether the 1995 clarification constituted a reasonable classification under Article 14 and whether the State could recover amounts already paid. It held that the 1995 order was a valid, reasonable classification and not arbitrary, but the State could not recover any amounts already paid to employees under the earlier order. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and allowed the appeals, directing that no recovery be made and that employees with a censure receive Selection Grade only after a one‑year deferment.
Issues considered
- Whether an employee who has earned a censure is automatically entitled to Selection Grade after completing 9, 18 or 27 years of service.
- Whether the 1995 Office Order deferring Selection Grade for censure‑penalised employees is a reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the State can recover amounts already paid to employees under the 1992 Order after the 1995 clarification.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14
Subjects
service lawselection gradecensureequality before lawArticle 14promotionreasonable classificationnatural justicerecovery of salary
Judgment
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 762
.A STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS .
v.
SHANKAR LAL PARMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 8404 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER, 30 2011
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.)
Service Law:
c Selection Grade - Grant of - Eligibility - Government of
Rajasthan Office order dated 24. 7. 1995 providing that grant
of selection grade to employees who have earned censure
will be deferred by one year - HELD: The Office Order dated
24. 7. 1995 cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional or without authority of law- Devi Singh's case
0
clarified - However, State Government would not be entitled
to make recoveries from the employees concerned -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Government of
Rajasthan, Finance Department (Rules Division) Office Order
dated
E
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 14 - Equality before law - Concept - Explained
- HELD: In the instant case, the State Government has
F permitted grant of Selection Grade to those who had good
service record but for those who had earned censure, the
same has been deferred by one year. Thus, there is a basic
and fundamental difference between the two categories of the
employees. It would clearly fall in the category of reasonable
G classification which is permissible - Service Law - Grant of
Selection Grade.
The State Government of Rajasthan, in order to
provide relief to employees due to stagnation in Class IV
H 762
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SHANKAR LAL 763
PARMAR
and Ministerial Subordinate Services and those holding A
isolated posts, by the first Office Order dated 25.1.1992,
prescribed Selection Grades for the lowest posts in these
services. A subsequent Circular dated 23.7.1992 issued
by the Office of the Director General of Police stated that
'censure' would not be taken into account as B
unsatisfactory service record for the purpose of grant of
Selection Grade. By Office Order/letter dated 24.7.1995
issued by the Finance Department (Rules Division) to the
Director General of Police, it. was clarfied that if an
employee had earned 'censure' then grant of Selection c
1
Grade would be deferred by one year. However, during
·the interregnum certain employees had been granted the
benefit of the Selection Grades despite their having
earned 'censure'. Since the State Government started
recovery of the amounts from such employees, writ 0
petitions were filed in the High Court and the first one
decided by the High Court was Devi Singh's1 case. On the
strength of the said order several matters were filed by
the employees and the High Court went on allowing the
claims of the employees.
E
In the instant appeals filed by the State Government,
the question for consideration before the Court was:
"whether an employee would be entitled for the grant of
'Selection Grade', automatically, at the first instance, after
the completion of 9 years, at the second instance, after F
the completion of 18 years and at the third and last
instance, after the completion of 27 years of service, even
when he has earned censure in the past years of service."
Allowing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1. Clause 7 of the Order dated 25.01.1992
makes it clear that only those employees would be
entitled for grant of Selection Grades, whose service
1. Devi Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2004(2) CDR 925 (Raj). H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R
A record has been satisfactory and are otherwise eligible
for promotion on the basis of seniority but are not able
to get the same as there might not be any channel of
promotion or for want of sanctioned posts in the cadre.
The doubts created by circular dated 23.07.1992, were
B clarified by the Office Order dated 24.07.1995 stating that
for the purposes of grant of Selection Grade, in a case
where an employee has earned censure, the same should
not be treated either as an impediment or obstruction for
consideration of ·his promotion, but his case for such a
c grant would be deferred by one year. [Para 7 and 11] [770-
C; 772-B-E]
1.2. In view of the scheme of Selection Grade,
earning of censure would be a bar for the employee to
be granted Selection Grade for one year only. This is how
D it should have been interpreted, and the first office Order
dated 25.01.1992 was to be ur.Jerstood. [para 12] [772-
F-G]
1.3. In Devi Singh's case what has been decided was
E that an employee who has already been granted the
benefit of Selection Grade, such benefits could not be
taken back by the State, without issuance of a show
cause notice to him in this regard. Thus, primarily and
basically, it was decided in favour of the employee on the
F ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
However, the cases filed subsequently were not same,
but on account of casual and general approach of
counsel for the parties who argued and showed that the
matters were squarely covered by Devi Singh's case, and,
G therefore, prayed that the said matters were to be
disposed of accordingly, the courts in their wisdom
proceeded to do so. Devi Singh's case was also followed
in the matter of Bheem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
(SBCWP No.3284/2005 decided on 17.01.2007) and the
H SLP of the State was dismissed by this Court on the
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SHANKAR LAL 765
PARMAR
ground of delay clearly leaving the question of law open. A
[para 14] [773-B·E]
Devi Sigh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2004(2) CDR
925(Raj) - referred to.
2.1. It has not been disputed before this Court that 8
censure is a minor penalty and. has a minimum penalty
as prescribed under the Rules. Thus, it cannot be said
that an employee who has earned censure would
automatically be entitled to promotion or respective
Selection Grade after the completion of 9, 18 or 27 years C
of service. The subsequent Office Order/ letter dated
27.7.1995 further makes it clear that all those employees
who have earned censure in service shall also be entitled
for the Selection Grade but it would be deferred by one
year. This appears to be an absolutely reasonable and D
perfect classification, as otherwise every employee who
has a clear image and another employee, who has earned
censure, would be treated at par. This is not permissible
in the service jurisprudence and is also violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. It is settled principle of law that E
"like should be treated alike". This is the mandate and
command of Article 14 of the Constitution, which is
required to be followed. [para 18-20] [774-E-H; 775-A-D]
2.2. Article 14 has two essential ingredients: (i)
Equality before Law; and (ii) Equal protection of law. F
Equality before Law is to attain justice: social, economic
and political. While under Equal protection of Law it has
to be ensured that amongst equals, the law could be
equally administered and similarly placed persons could
be placed in a similar manner. State still has the power G
to differentiate amongst different classes of people. It can
positively discriminate on the basis of reasonable
classification and distinction but this must be based upon
an intelligible differentia, which inherently separates such
persons from the others. [para 21] [775-E-H] H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R
A 2.3. In the case in hand, it is a question of grant of
Selection Grade. A Selection Grade has higher pay but
in the same post. Selection Grade was created to remove
stagnation in service and consequently leading to greater
efficiency. State has permitted grant of Selection Grade
B to those who had good service record but for those who
had earned censure, the same has been deferred by one
year. Thus, there is a basic and fundamental difference
between the two categories of the employees. It would
clearly fall in the category of reasonable classification
c 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. The appellant-State was fully justified in
issuing the subsequent Office Order/ letter dated
0 24.07 .1995, putting all controversies at rest. There is
nothing to suggest that any case of discrimination has
been made out against the respondents/ employees. The
said, Office Order/ letter cannot be said to be illegal,
arbitrary, unconstitutional or without authority of law.
E [para 22-23] [776-A-F]
3. The impugned orders passed by the Division
Benches of the High Court cannot be sustained in law
and as such, are set aside and quashed. However,
looking into the controversies which have been there in
F the State of since 1992, it is directed that (i) the appellant·
State would not be entitled to recover financial benefits
already extended to the employees, pursuant to the first
Office order dated 25.01.1992; (ii) the appellant-State
would also not be entitled to recover any amount which
G might have been paid to the employees even after
issuance of the second clarificatory office Order/ letter
dated 24.07.1995, as recovery of such amount would
cause great hardships to the employees; (iii) the
employees who have earned censure in the past years
-I for their service record will not be entitled to be granted
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SHANKAR LAL 767
PARMAR
'Selection Grade' alongwith those who have a clean and A
unblemished record; they would be granted 'Selection
Grade' only one year thereafter. (iv) Any emplbyee who
has been promoted before the said period would not be
entitled for the grant of 'Selection Grade'. [para 24] [776·
H; 777-A-F] B
Case Law Reference:
2004 (2) CDR 925 (Raj) referred to para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. C
8404 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.2.2010 of the High
Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCSA No. 22 of 2010 in
SBCWP No. 8194 of 2008.
D
WITH
C.A. No. 8405, 8406, 8414, 8407, 8408, 8409, 8410-8411 of
2011.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, lrshad Ahmad, Ranji Thomas E
and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant.
Rishabh Sancheti, T. Mahipal, Dr. Monika Gusain, Hariom
Yaduvanshi, H.D. Thanvi, Rishi Motolia, Sarad Kumar
Singhania and Puneet Jain (for Pratibha Jain) for the F
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK VERMA, J.1. Leave granted.
G
2. The solitary question that arises for our consideration
in the instant and the connected appeals is whether an
. employee would be entitled for the grant of 'Selection Grade',
automatically, at the first instance, after the completion of 9
years, at the second instance, after the completion of 18 years
and at the third and last instance, after the completion of 27 H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 11 S.C.R.
A years of service, even when he has earned censure in the past
years of service.
3. In fact, on the strength of an Order pronounced by
Division Bench on 12.12.2003 in the matter of Devi Singh Vs.
B State of Rajasthan & Ors. [reported in 2004 (2) CDR-925
(Raj)], several matters came to be filed in the High Court of
Judicature of Rajasthan both at the Principal Bench at Jodhpur
and at the Bench at Jaipur claiming entitlement for the Selection
Grade. Unfortunately, the learned Judges, either sitting in Single
C Bench hearing Writ Petitions of the employees or in Division
Bench, hearing Writ Appeals of the State, without properly
appreciating or adverting to the ratio decidendi of the case, in
a stereotype manner, went on allowing the Writ Petitions filed
by the employees and dismissing the appeals preferred by the
State. The approach adopted by the High Court in all such
D cases would reflect that the judgment in Devi Singh's case has
not only been misread but has also been misinterpreted by
them. In fact, it was the duty of the learned Advocate for the
Appellants, who had appeared in the High Court to have
pointed out the distinction, but apparently it appears that he
E failed to do so which has led to erroneous judgments. 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.
F 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:
"Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners~
G
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of
delay as also on merits.
However, the question of law is kepropen to ~e decided
· in an appropriate case."
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SHANKAR LAL 769
PARMAR [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
Since the, Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the A
ground of
delay and the question of law was clearly left open,
thus there is no difficulty in deciding these appeals on merits,
~ecause the said Special Leave petition was not decided on
m~rit. .'
·•
B
5. Brief facts material for deciding the instant case are
given hereinbelow:
With a view to provide relief to employees, Class IV,
Ministerial Subordinate Services and those holding isolated
posts, Selection Grades were prescribed for the lowest posts C
in these services, so as to resolve the problem of stagnation.
With this intention, first Office Order was issued by the State
of Rajasthan on 25.01.1992. The salient and important features
of the said Order, relevant for the purpose of these appeals are
reprod!Jced hereinbelow: D
"2.(i) The first selection Grade shall be granted from the
daY on ·which one completes service of nine years,
provided that the employee has not got one promotion
earlj~ as, is available in his existing cadre.
E
l
(ii) The Second Selection Grade shall be granted
from the day following the day on which one completes
service of eighteen years, provided that the employee has
not got two. promotions earlier as might be available on
his existing cadre an the first selections grade granted to F
him was lower than the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000.
(iii) The third Selection Grade shall be granted from
the day on which one completes service of twenty seven
years, provided that the employee has not got three G
promotions earlier as first or the second Selection Grade
granted to him, as the case may be was lower that the pay
scale of Rs.2200-4000.
6. Another important and relevant Clause in the said Order
H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R.
A for our perusal is 7, which is also reproduced herainbelow:
"7. Selection Grades in terms of this Order shall be granted
only to those employees whose record service is
satisfactory. The record of service which makes one
eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be
B
considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of
the Selection Grade."
7. Clause 7 makes it clear that only those employees
would be entitled for grant of Selection Grades, whose service
C record has been satisfactory and is otherwise eligible for
promotion on the basis of seniority but is not able to get the
same as there might not be any channel of promotion or for want
of sanctioned posts in the cadre.
D 8. Another Department of the Appellant-State, Office of
Director General of Police (Rajasthan) in its wisdom, deemed
it fit to further clarify the position and issued another Circular
dated 23.07.1992. The relevant portion of ·the said circular is
reproduced hereinbelow:
E "As far as there is question of censure, it shall be not
taken into account as unsatisfactory service record for the
purpose of grant of selection pay scale, and it shall not be
.... obstructive in grant of selection pay-scale. The period of
last seven years shall be counted from the year, for which
F he is to be given promotion."
On aceount of the first Office Order dated 25.01.1992 and
the subsequent Circular dated 23.07.1992, as reproduced
hereinabove, State started granting Selection Grades to all
G those employees, who had completed requisite number of
years in service, even if they had earned censure in previous
years but had not been promoted.
9. To remove the doubts which cropped up on account of
the Circular dated 23. 07 .1992, which created confusion and
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SHANKAR LAL 771
PARMAR [DEEPAK VERMA, J.] ·
· doubts in the mind of the Heads of Department, as to whether A
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 Order/letter dated 24.07.1995 was
sent, by the Finance Department (Rules Division) to the Director B
General of Police, Rajasthan. The relevant portion thereof is
reproduced hereinbelow:
"I am directed to refer to your letter No.F.15(10) P.F./Kani/
90 dated 24.04.1995 on the above noted subject and to
say that one of the conditions for grant of selection grade C
is that the service record of that employee should be
satisfactory for the purpose of grant of Selection grade.
The promotion_ of Government Servants, who have been
awarded the penalty of censure, is postponed by one year.
Since, penalty of censure effects promotion by one year, D
it effects grant of Selection Grade also by one year. In the ·
second para of your Circular No. F.15 (10) P.Force/Const./
90/3439 dated 23.07.1992 it has been clarified that
penalty of censure shall have no effect for granting of
selection grade. This is not in accordance with the rules/ E
order."
This office order/ letter made it clear that if an employee
has earned censure during his service, then his grant of
Selection Grade would be deferred by one year. But this i=
clarification was issued by the State after expiry of almost more
than 3 years from the date of issuance of the first office order
on 25.01.1992.
10. However, during the interregnum period between
25.01.1992 to 24.07.1995, certain employees were granted the G
benefit of the Selection Grades, despite having earned
censure. But after issuance of the subsequent Office Order/
letter dated 24.07.1995, Appellant-State started the recovery
of the amounts from those employees who were granted
Selection Grades even though they had earned censure. This H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 11 S.C.R.
A led to filing of several Writ Petitions in the High Court, the 1st
being Devi Singh's case (supra) referred hereinabove. All the
subsequent line of cases followed the same process.
I
11. To further clarify the Circular dated 23.07.1992 issued
B by Director General of Police, Rajasthan, relevant portion,
reproduced at Para 8 hereinabove, another clarificatory Circular
dated 24.08.1.995 was issued. Thus, vide this subsequent
Circular, the last paragraph containing the following wqrds "as
far as there is question of p11nishment of censure, it shall not
C be considered in service record as unsatisfactory in grant of
selection grade and shall ,not be impediment in grant of
selection grade" mentioned, in last paragraphs of Circular No.
V. 15(10)P.Force/Const./90(.3439 dated 23.07.1992 issued by
this office, being contraryl to Rules, was withdrawn with
immediate effect. This Circular" alongwith the office order/letter
D of Finance Department (RJles Division) dated 24.07.1995,
clearly stipulates that for th~ purposes of grant of Selection
Grade, in cases where an emf?loyee has earned a censure, the
censure should not be treat~d either as an impediment or
obstruction for consideration 9f
his promotion but his case for
E such a grant would be deferred by one year.
-
12. This earning of censure would be a bar for the
employee to be granted Selection Grade for one year only. This
is how it should have been interpreted, and the first office Order
F dated 25.01.1992 was to be understood. However, with regard
to issuance of Office Orders from time to time and clarificatory
Circular issued by the State, the things became much more
complicated and confusing, leading to filing of many Writ
Petitions and passing of several orders by Single Benches and
G Division Benches cl fhe High Court. We are thus called upon
to set the controversy at rest.
13. In the light of the aforesaid, we have heard Dr. Manish
Singhvi, learned AAG and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates for
the Appellants and Mr. Puneet Jain, Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Dr. Monika
H Gusain and Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Advocates for the
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SHANKAR LAL 773
PARMAR [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
Respondents at length and have also perused the records. A
14. As mentioned hereinabove, the first judgment that came
for the benefit of the Respondent-employee was rendered on
12.12.2003, i.e., Devi Singh's case (supra). However, in the
said case, what has been decided was that an employee who
8
has already been granted the benefit of Selection Grade, such
benefits could not be taken back by the Appellant-State, without
issuance of a Show Cause Notice to him in this regard. Thus,
primarily and basically, it was decided in favour of Devi Singh
on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
However, the cases filed subsequently either before the Single C
Bench or Division Bench were not same, but on accountof
casual and general approach of learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties who argued and showed that the matters
were squarely covered by Devi Singh's case and hence prayed
that these matters were to be disposed of accordingly, the D
courts in their wisdom proceeded to do so. It is relevant to
further mention that the said case of Devi Singh was also
followed in the matter of Bheem Singh Versus State of
Rajasthan (SBCWP No.3284/2005) decided on 17.01.2007.
E
15. There is no doubt that an employee, who has
completed 9 years of service, would be entitled for the grant of
first Selection Grade and would further be entitled for the grant
of second Selection Grade after the completion of 18 years of
service and third Selection Grade would be granted to him after F
completion of 27 years of service, provided that during the
interregnum period, he has not earned promotion as may be
available in his existing cadre and has also not earned censure
in the past years. This appears to be the main theme and the
purpose for which the first office order was issued.
G
16. Clause 7 further makes it clear that only those/such
employees would be entitled to be granted Selection Grade
whose service record has been satisfactory. This implicitly
shows that the person who has an untainted, unblemished,
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R.
A clean and unpolluted record in service would be treated on a
higher pedestal than those who have either tainted, blemished,
unclean or polluted record. This obviously appears to be a
reasonable classification and is under the ambit and touchstone
of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is neither any ambiguity
B nor any doubt in the same.
17. However, with an intention to clarify the controversy, a
subsequent office order/letter dated 24.07 .1995 was sent by
Finance Department (Rules Division) to Director General of
Police, Rajasthan wherein it was provided that the record of
C service which made an employee eligible for promotion on the
basis of seniority was also to be considered to be satisfactory
for the purpos'e of granting 'Selection Grade'. It further laid down
that if an employee has earned censure, then his case for grant
of Selection Grade would be deferred by one year. In other
D words, he would be entitled to get it but after 1 year, i.e. to say
on completion of 10 years of service as compared to others,
who would get it on completion of 9 years of service.
18. It has not been disputed before us that censure is a
E minor penalty and has a minimum penalty as prescribed under
the Rules of Rajasthan. Thus, it cannot.be said that an
employee who has earned censure would automatically be
entitled for promotion or respective Selection Grade after the
completion of 9, 18 or 27 years of service.
F 19. However, we need to clarify that during the interregnum
period between the first Office Order, issued on 25.01.1992 and
the subsequent clarificatory office order/ letter dated
24.07.1995, some of the employees were granted the benefit
of Selection Grade. The Appellant - State would not be entitled
G to claim refund from such employees who have already been
granted benefit in this period. The subsequent office Order/
letter further makes it clear that all those employees who have
earned censure in service shall also be entitled for the selection
grade but the grant of Selection Grade to them would be
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SHANKAR LAL 775
PARMAR [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
deferred by one year. This appears to be an absolutely A
reasonable and perfect classification as otherwise every
employee who has a clean image and another employee, who
has earned censure would be treated at par. This is not
permissible in the service jurisprudence and is also violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. B
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
1who have had a clean service record. As mentioned C ·
'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 D
equality.
21. Since the appeals are to be decided on the touch-stone
of Article 14 of the Constitution, in short we would like to deal
with it. This Article has two essential ingredients. E
(i) Equality before Law
(ii) Equal protection of Law
The forefathers of our Constitution in their wisdom F
incorporated the provision of Equality before Law to attain
justice: social, economic and political. While Equal protection
of Law was incorporated so that amongst equals, the law could
be equally administered and similarly placed persons could be
placed in a similar manner. But this has a caveat. State still has G
the power to differentiate amongst different classes of people.
That is to say, it can positively discriminate on the basis of
reasonable classification and distinction but this must be based
upon an intelligible differentia, which inherently separates such
persons from the others.
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [~011) .11 S.C.R
A 22. In the case in hand, it is a question of grant of Selection
Grade. A Selection Grade has higher pay but in the same post.
A promotion post is a higher post with higher pay. A Selection
Grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who may
not be able to get a chance of promotion on account of limited
B outlets of promotion, should at least be placed in the Selection
Grade to prevent stagnation at the maximum of the scale.
Selection Grade was created to remove stagnation in service
and consequently leading to greater efficiency. State has
permitted grant of Selection Grade to those who had good
c service record but for those who had earned censure, the same
has been deferred by one year. Thus, according to us, it would
~le~rly fall in the category of reasonable classification which is
permissible in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution
and also on account of various judgmertsl pronounced by this
D 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
E 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
F Appellants and thus, have no hesitation in allowing these
Appeals. It is also pertinent to mention here that Respondents/
Employees had not cnallenged the subsequent Office Order/
letter dated 24.07.1995, as being illegal, unconstitutional,
arbitrary or without jurisdiction. As long as this Office Order/
G 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
H ., ,.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SHANKAR LAL 777
PARMAR [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
learned Judges of the Division Benches cannot be sustained A
in law. Hence, the same are hereby set aside and quashed.
However, looking into the controversies which have been there
in the State of RajaSthan since 1992, we deem it fit and proper
to pass the following orders:
8
(i) The Appellant-State would not be entitled to recover
financial benefits already extended to the
employees, pursuant to the first office order issued
by Appellant on 25.01.1992.
(ii) The Appellant would not also be entitled to recover c
any amount which might have been paid to the
employees even after issuance of the second
clarificatory office Order/ letter dated 24.07.1995 as
according to us, recovery of such amount would
cause great hardships to the employees. D
(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
E
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'. F
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. G
R.P. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search