DB1045

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
(1) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1045/2013
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Chandu Ram Kukkar
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ramavtar Joshi
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. K.L. Yadav
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr.Suchendra Mohan
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr.Suresh Chand Sharma
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Harbir Singh
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Ram Kumar Garwa
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. D.K.Gupta
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mrs. Sajjan Sidhu
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Roshan Lal Talwar
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Ravindra Rao Bidwalkar
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr.Bhagwati Lal Chawat & Anr.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Suresh Pal
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mrs. Jamila Khatoon Mirza

State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. R.C.Khandelwal
2
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. K.C.Gupta
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. P.N. Bhardwaj
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. S.K.Acharya & Ors.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Param Dev Sharma
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mohan Shrotriya
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. S.P. Soni
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Krishna Govind Singh & Ors.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. S.K.Hawa & Ors.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jagdish Singh Khinchi
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Nemi Chand Shrimal
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. S.C.Thukral & Ors.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. T.C.Gupta
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr.Bal Krishna Gupta
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mahaveer Prasad Sharma
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Salig Ram
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. S.P.Jalan
3
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Ravindra Kulshrestha
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Smt. Bhagwati Swami
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jai Pal Singh & Ors.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Janardan Kandpal
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Hukum Chand Jain
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Mahavir Mal
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Keshav Audichya & Ors.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Himmat Singh Gehlot
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Mohan Lal Kasat
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Gupta
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Durga Lal Panwar
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dharam Veer Sahani
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ramlal Verma
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Smt. Sudha Vats
Date of Judgment : 19.08.2014
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr. Om Prakash Meena, OIC, Joint Director, Pension & Pensioners
Welfare Department.
Mr. D.K.Mitra, OIC, Director, Higher Education, for appellants-
State.
4
Dr. Bal Krishan Gupta,
Dr. S.C.Sharma,
Dr. Kailash Gupta,
Dr. Saligram,
Dr. Nemi Chand Srimal,
Mr. Param Dev, respondents in person.
The delay in filing the special appeals has been sufficiently
explained. The delay is accordingly condoned and the
applications for condonation of delay are allowed.
All these Division Bench appeals are directed against the
order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in a
batch of writ petitions, by which, he had allowed the writ petitions
and directed the respondents to consider the case of all the
petitioners as per Memorandum dated 12.09.2008 for revision of
the pension after taking note of the pay scale so notified vide
Notifications dated 12.10.2009 at Annexure-4 and 13.05.2010 at
Annexure-5. The learned Single Judge further issued directions
that if the petitioners had competed 3 years service in the
selection scale prior to their retirement, then the pay scale in the
pay band of Rs.37400-67000 would be taken into consideration
for them and pension be revised accordingly. The directions were
to be complied with within a period of three months.
The hearing of the batch of these special appeals was
adjourned on many dates. Learned Advocate General was
requested to appear and assist the Court. He was not present on
13.08.2014 when the matter was taken up. The appellants-State
was instead represented by the Officer Incharge/Joint Director,
Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department.
5
On 13.8.2014, while adjourning the matter with a request of
the learned Advocate General to appear and assist the Court, we
had made it clear that if no one appears to press the appeal on
the next date i.e. 19.08.2014, the Court may consider to dismiss
all the appeals both for want of prosecution as well as on the
ground that the similar questions have been decided by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in State of Haryana
and another vs. Satyapal Yadav and another [LPA No.1955
of 2012, decided on 14.01.2013], against which, the Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).26907/2013 filed by the State of
Haryana, was dismissed by the Apex Court on 10.07.2014.
Today once again, the Advocate General is absent. We are
aware that the lawyers in the High Court are abstaining from
work. The resolutions, passed by the Bar Associations, however,
may not compel the Advocate General, who is the first law officer
of the State, holding a constitutional post to abstain from
appearing in the Court. He cannot be a party to such resolutions,
which are apparently illegal in view of the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause, A Registered
Society vs.Union of India [(1994)5 SCC 557]; Sanjiv Datta,
Dy.Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
[(1995)3 SCC 619]; K.John Koshy vs. Dr.Tarakeshwar
Prasad Shaw [(1998)8 SCC 624]; Mahabir Prasad Singh vs.
Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd. [(1999)1 SCC 37] and Ex.-Captain
Harish Uppal vs. Union of India & Anr.[(2003)2 SCC 45].
We are pained to observe that for several weeks, the Advocate
6
General, the Additional Advocate Generals and the other State
Counsels are not appearing in the Court. The Advocate General
and the Additional Advocate Generals, and other State Law
Officers are duty bound to assist the Court in deciding the cases.
Their absence is wholly unjustified and is deprecated.
The respondents are pensioners. They have waited for a
long period for decisions on their writ petitions and thereafter,
these special appeal. In the circumstances, we requested Mr.Om
Prakash Meena, Officer Incharge/Joint Director, appearing for the
Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department, to present the case of
the department. He has agreed to make submissions on behalf of
the appellants and has also placed on record written submissions,
which have been prepared by him and have been filed by
Mr.Vishal Sharma/Mr.Sheetanshu Sharma, junior to Advocate
General, settled by Mr.N.M.Lodha, learned Advocate General,
Rajasthan.
All the respondents were awarded Selection Scale as per the
then existing guidelines of the University Grants Commission
(hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC') and have retired prior to
01.01.2006. All of them had faced the screening test, in which
their academic achievements, such as refresher and orientation
courses, as well as service records were considered by the
Selection Committee in accordance with the then existing
guidelines, prior to 01.01.2006, when the recommendations of
the Sixth

Pay Commission, had not come into force, after its
acceptance by the Central Government as well as the
7
Government of Rajasthan. There were three pay scales,
applicable to the respondents, namely, Rs.8000-275-13500;
12000-420-15300 and 12000-420-18300. The Sixth

Pay
Commission recommended to revise these pay scales to
Rs.15600-39100 with Academic Grade Pay (hereinafter referred
to as 'AGP') of Rs.6,000/- to the first existing pay scale,
Rs.7,000/- as AGP as Selection Scale, to the second existing pay
scale, and Rs.8,000/- as Selection Scale AGP to the the third pay
scale. It also recommended for bifurcation of pay scales of
Lecturer (selection scale) into two namely, Rs.15600-39100 with
AGP of Rs.8000/- for those lecturers (selection scale), who have
not completed 3 years of service in the existing pay scale as on
01.01.2006, and the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of
Rs.9000/- for all those, who had completed 3 years service in the
existing pay scale as on 01.01.2006 and onwards, subject to the
guidelines issued in this regard.
There is no dispute that the respondents, as pensioners,
were entitled, as per para 5 of the Memorandum dated
12.09.2008, for fixation of their pension at the minimum of 50%
in the running pay band plus grade pay of the post, introduced
vide Notification dated 12.10.2009. Their pensions were also
revised as per the Notification dated 12.10.2009, but out of the
two pay bands for Lecturer (selection scale), the lower pay band
of Rs.15600-39100 was taken into consideration for fixation of
pension on the ground that the respondents had not completed 3
years of service in the Selection Scale prior to their retirement.
8
Learned Single Judge held that with the policy decision,
taken in pursuance to the aforesaid Memorandum, the
consolidated pension as on 01.09.2006 should not be lower than
50% of the minimum pay of the post in the running pay band
plus grade pay introduced with effect from 01.09.2006. Since the
pay scales were revised with effect from 01.09.2006, it was clear
that such revised pay scales were to be taken note of in the
revision of the pension. The pay scale was revised pursuant to
the Notification dated 12.10.2009, with effect from 01.01.2006
instead of 01.09.2006. In view of the above, it was clear that
revision of pay scale would be at the minimum of 50% of the sum
of the pay in running pay band plus grade pay so introduced from
the year 2006. He held that the University Grants Commission
Regulations of 2010 notified on 30.06.2010, with special
reference to para Nos.1.3, 6.3, 6.3.9, 6.4.0 to 6.4.8, were
applicable to the Teachers, who were in active service. These
Regulations did not have any retrospective effect.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Regulations of 2010, if
any candidate was eligible for promotion under Career
Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'CAS') prior to
31.12.2008, the promotion under CAS would be as per
Regulations of 2000, as amended from time to time, read with
the Notification and guidelines issued by the UGC from time to
time. In the circumstances, the promotion in the selection scale
could not be nullified, even if it was given prior to the Notification
of 2000. If any Teacher/Librarian/PTI was given Selection Scale
9
prior to the enforcement of the Regulations of 2010, it was not
necessary for him to be considered for again giving the Selection
Scale in accordance with the Scheme of the Regulations of 2010.
The Regulations did not take away the Selection Scale awarded
under the earlier provisions. For example, if a teacher was
awarded Selection Scale in the year 2002 or prior to it under the
old Regulations and is continuing, then the benefit of Revised Pay
Scale Rules, could not be denied to him.
A similar question had come up in the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of State of Haryana and
another vs. Satyapal Yadav and another (supra). A Division Bench
of the Court presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, the then
Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, upheld the order
of the learned Single Judge for following reasons:
Rule 6 of the Revised Pension Rules provides that
the pensioner/family pensioner shall not be entitled to
pension lower than 50% of the minimum pay in the pay
band plus grade pay in the corresponding revised scale
in terms of the Haryana Civil Services/Revised Pay
Rules, 2008. This was clarified vide office memorandum
dated 10.07.2009 wherein it was mentioned that the
entitlement of pension would have no correlation with
the subsequent upward revision of pay, if any , from the
post from which the employee retired and it would be
relatable only to the pay drawn in the admissible scale
of corresponding pay at the time when the employee
retired and pension was sanctioned. When this
clarification is read along with the substantive rule and
the scheme of pay revision, since the petitioners had
completed more than 3 years of service in the selection
grade prior to 1.1.2006, they were to be fixed in the Pay
Band of Rs.37400-67000/- as they were drawing
selection grade of Rs.12000-18300/- prior to their
retirement. The clarification issued by the Higher
Education Commissioner, Haryana vide memorandum
dated 7.9.2010 is, thus, against the decision taken by
the Government of Haryana and in violation of the
Pension Rules, 2009.
10
The Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s).26907/2013 [State of
Haryana vs. Satya Pal Yadav] filed against the judgment dated
14.01.2013, was dismissed by the Apex Court on 10.07.2014 with
the following order:
Heard Mr.Neeraj Jain, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Bharat Sangal, learned counsel
for the respondents. We are convinced that there is no
substance in these special leave petitions and they are
accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
In the written arguments, presented by the Joint Director,
Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department, Government of
Rajasthan and signed by the Advocate General, the order of
learned Single Judge has been assailed on the following grounds:
2. That the present appeals are related with the
pensioners. As per provisions contained in para 5 of FD
Memorandum No.F.12(3)FD/Rules/2008 dated
12.09.2008 for pre 01.01.2006 pensioners it has been
provided that consolidated pension as on 01.01.2006 of
pre 01.01.2006 pensioners, shall not be lower than 50
percent of the sum of the minimum pay of the post in
the RPB (Revised Pay Band) plus Grade Pay introduced
w.e.f. 01.01.2006 corresponding to the pre revised pay
scale of the post from which pensioner has retired. The
corresponding pay scale of Lecturer (selection scale) is
12000-420-18300. In the pre revised pay scale there
was no bifurcation and as such the corresponding pay
scale of the pre revised pay scale is 15600-39100 plus
AGP Rs.8000/-. The RPB of 37400-67000 plus 9000/- is
admissible to those lecturer (selection scale) who are in
service on 01.01.2006 and have completed three years
or more after 01.01.2006 so also after looking of record
etc. and as per guide-lines. It is a newly created
class/Grade came into existence only w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
Para 5 of the memorandum also makes it clear that
retirees will be given fixation as per minimum of the
post. In the present case, post is Lecturer (Selection
Scale), hence minimum pay band for the said post is
15600-39100, hence it is clear that fixation of pension
on the basis of said pay band is just and proper. Copy
of the memorandum dated 12.09.2008 was submitted
with additional affidavit as Annexure A.
3. That the notification dated 12.10.2009 has been
11
issued promulgating revised pay scale rules of 2009 and
it has a Schedule as Schedule 1 (given under Rules 5 of
the Rules). It is related with fixation of pay of existing
staff and not for pension. It is noteworthy that the said
schedule at item No.3 date 1.1.2006 has been given. It
is submitted that for giving interpretation of the said
item, given date i.e.1.1.2006 is having significance and
carries relevance in present appeals as it distinguishes
persons of two different classes; (i) persons who have
not completed 3 years in the existing pay scale as on
1.1.2006; and (ii) persons who have completed 3 years
in the existing pay scale as on 1.1.2006 and onwards.
It is worthwhile to mention that the date 1.1.2006
is the effective date which makes the existing
incumbent, who are in service on 01.01.2006 and who
have completed three years or more in the existing pay
scale on 1.1.2006 and onwards are eligible for fixation in
the pay band of 37400-67000.
4. That it is most respectfully submitted that in
Schedule 1 annexed with the rules, at item no.3 date
1.1.2006 has been given. It is submitted that these
rules have been made applicable w.e.f.1.1.2006 is
having significance. Item No.3 of the Schedule relates
with lecturers (selection scale) and it has two parts
namely:
(i) persons who have not completed 3 years in
existing pay scale as on 1.1.2006.
(ii) persons who have completed three years in the
existing pay scale as on 1.1.2006 and onwards.
It is noteworthy that date 1.1.2006 is effective
date which makes the existing incumbent who are in
service on 1.1.2006 and who have completed three
years on 1.1.2006 in existing pay scale are eligible for
pay fixation in the scale 37400-67000. It is most
respectfully submitted that the 'existing Pay Scale' and
'Existing Government College Teachers' have been
defined in Rule 4(1) and (2) of Rajasthan Civil Services
(Revised Pay for Government College Teachers including
Librarians & PTIs), Rules 2009 as under:
4. (1) Existing Pay Scale means scale of pay
applicable to a teacher including Librarian and PTI
of a Government College, but for the coming into
effect of these rules, in respect of a post held by
him immediately before 1
st
January, 2006.
(2) Existing Government College Teacher means
a Teacher including Librarian and PTI who is in
service on 1
st
January, 2006 and drawing pay in an
existing pay scale.
5. That it is most respectfully submitted that the
petitioners may have completed three years in the
existing pay scale prior to their retirement but they were
not in service on 1.1.2006 as they retired prior to
12
1.1.2006, hence, they are not eligible for pay band
37400-67000.
6. That the State Government has introduced the cut
off date 1.1.2006 looking to various consideration
including the financial constraints/burden. Moreover, if
the proposition given by the learned Single Judge that
those incumbents also who have completed three years
or more in the existing pay scale prior to 1.1.2006 are
entitled for fixation of pension in pay band of 37400-
67000, is accepted, the very purpose of fixing cut off
date as 1.1.2006 gets frustrated. So also in respectful
submissions of the respondents such cut off date is
permissible in law.
7. That the Government never intended to include
those incumbents who have completed three years or
more in the existing pay scale prior to 1.1.2006 and also
retired prior to 1.1.2006 otherwise there will be
discrimination between the retirees of same pay scale.
In this respect communication addressed by the
Director, Pension & Pensioner Welfare Department dated
15.12.2009 & communication dated 22.1.2010 have
already been submitted as Annexures C&D respectively
with the additional submissions/affidavit made by
appellants.
8. It is further submitted that pay band of Rs. 37400-
67000 is not automatic, person has to be in service as
on the date of revision. When person already retired,
there was no such further selection scale.
Para 6.3.9 of UGC Regulations is as under:
6.3.9: Incumbent teacher must be on role and active
service of University/colleges on the date of
consideration. A bare perusal of judgment would show
that virtually the Hon'ble Court proceeded with
assumption that grant of selection scale (3.2) is virtually
automatic but in respectful submission of the appellants
it is not correct because for grant of selection scale- 3.2
is based on further consideration. As given in guidelines.
The writ petitioner (respondent) admittedly retired long
before and no such consideration could have been made
in their case. In such case pension could not have been
fixed on the basis of pay band of Rs.37400-67000. It is
also pertinent to submit here that even in item 3(ii) it
has been said that incumbent should have completed
three years of service in the existing pay scale as on
1.1.2006 and on wards subject to guidelines issued in
this regard.
It is further fortified that grant of pay band in
37400-67000 was not automatic.
The decision dated 22.1.2010 taken by the Finance
Department upholding the view was never challenged
and the same has been placed before the court, so also
same has been reproduced in judgment rendered by
13
D.B. and was required to be considered by learned
Single Judge but there is no finding in this respect.
9. That before the learned Division Bench the
petitioner sought liberty to amend the writ petition for
challenging the provisions of the Rules and Guidelines
but no amendment was made.
Rule 165 of the Pension Rules contained in Chapter
XI makes it clear that where any doubt arises as to
interpretation of these rules, it shall be referred to
Finance Department for decision. It is submitted that
the matter was considered by the Finance Department
and vide communication dated 22.1.2010 it has been
made clear by the Finance Department also that all
retired persons will get running pay band of Rs.12400-
18300 with grade pay of Rs.8000/-. This decision was
never challenged by the petitioner and as such it will
prevail.
10. While deciding Special Appeal the Hon'ble Court
specifically pointed out (1) Guidelines pertaining to para
6.3.9 provides for newly created pay scale of Rs.34000-
67000 which depends upon selection to be made on
consideration of service record by the Selection
Committee. In para 6.3.9 of Guide-lines it has been very
specifically said that person should be on the roll and in
active service on the date of consideration by the
Selection Committee for pay band of Rs.37400-67000.
Meaning thereby it is clear that consideration was
required and it is only for the persons who are in service
as on 1.1.2006 and onwards.
The learned Single Judge considered this aspect
and observed that second proviso to Rule 1.3 (as quoted
at page No.17 of the impugned judgment) has not taken
into consideration. Second proviso to para 1.3 says that
in the event of any candidate becomes eligible for
promotion under Advancement Career Scheme,
promotion of such candidate shall be governed by the
University Grants Commission Minimum qualification
required for appointment under Career Advancement
Scheme, the University and colleges/institutions
affiliated to it did not apply in the present case because
these Regulations are of 2000 and the case in hand is
related to the year 2006. In such circumstances second
proviso to para 1.3 is not applicable and as such finding
given by the learned Single Judge that due to second
proviso of para 1.3, para 6.3.9 is not applicable for the
persons who retired prior to 1.1.2006 is erroneous and
deserves to be set aside.
11. That the analogy sought to have made as
comparison with Circular issued by Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resources Development dated
15.12.2009.
Memorandum dated 12.9.2008 issued by the
14
Government of Rajasthan makes it clear that the
pension shall not be lower than 50% of the sum of
minimum pay of the post in running pay band plus
Grade Pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.2006 corresponding to
pre revised pay scale of the post. It is pertinent to
submit here that the name of the post is lecturer
(selection scale) and minimum of post in pay band of
15600-39100, whereas in Central Government in
Memorandum dated 15.12.2009 it has been said that
incumbent who had completed three years service in the
pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 as on 1.1.2006 will be
placed in pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with academic
grade pay of Rs.9000 meaning thereby in the Circular
itself it has been said that a person who had completed
three years of service in the pay scale of 12000-420-
18300 will get pay scale of 37400-67000 whereas in the
matter relating to State of Rajasthan it has been said
minimum of pay scale of lecturer in selection scale of
the post and existing pay scale was 12000-420-18300
and now w.e.f. 1.1.2006 two category of said post have
been created namely who were in service as on
1.1.2006 and had not completed three years will be
given 15600-39100 and others who have completed
three years as on 1.1.2006 and onwards will be given
37400-67000. In the present case it was made clear
that minimum of the post as lecturer selection scale, pay
band for the said post is 15600-39100. Hence the
persons who had retired before 1.1.2006 though he had
completed more than three years in the existing pay
scale, he will be fixed in the minimum pay band for the
post i.e.15600-39100 with AGP 8000.
12. That the Division Bench while deciding the appeal
specifically pointed out that impact of clarification issued
by the Finance Department vide communication dated
22.1.2010 is required to be examined. This argument
was made before the learned Single Judge and has been
recorded at page 10 of the impugned judgment the
aforesaid was thus clarified.....Revision of pension with
the aid of pay band of Rs.37400-67000 is not tenable.
The clarification issued by the Finance Department was
placed before the learned Single Judge and so also it
has been reproduced at page 7 of the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench. Rule 165 of the Pension
Rules makes it clear that where any doubt arises as to
what interpretation, it shall be referred to Finance
Department and Finance Department vide
communication dated 22.1.2010 has made it clear that
all retired persons will get running Pay Band of 15600-
39100. This decision was never challenged. A bare
perusal of judgment would show that this aspect of the
matter has not at all been taken into consideration
though the learned Division Bench made specific
15
direction. In such circumstances impugned
judgment/order rendered by the learned Single Judge
deserves to be quashed.
13. The provisions of Circular of GOI (MHRD)F. No.15-
1/2009-IFD/U.II dated 15.12.2009 is not applicable to
State Government Pensioners. It is only applicable for
Central Government Universities/institutions deemed to
be Universities fully funded by the Central Government.
It is further submitted that Circular is quite
distinguishable because in the Memorandum dated
12.9.2008 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, it
has been made clear that minimum of the pay of post in
the pay band of 15600-39100, will be the basic
consideration for fixing pension in the Revised Pay Scale
Rules. In the present case lecturers (selection scale) is
the post and minimum pay band of the said post is
15600-39100 where as in the Central Government there
is no such rider relating to post and as such said circular
issued by Central Government has no relevance in the
present case.
14. The above referred questions were neither
considered by the Apex Court in the case of Haryana
Pension Rules nor such arguments were raised. It is
pertinent to submit here that in the case of Haryana a
clarification was issued by the Haryana Education
Commissioner vide memorandum dated 7.9.2010 but
that was against the decision taken by the Government
of Haryana and so also in violation of Pension Rules
2009 applicable in Haryana. But in the present case
there is no inconsistency between the decision taken by
the Government of Rajasthan and the fixation made by
the Pension Department. More so, as per pension rules,
Rules 165 makes it clear that interpretation made by
Finance Department will be final. In such circumstances
it is clear that clarification issued by the Education
Commissioner Haryana was against the decision taken
by the Government of Haryana. Hence the case of
Haryana is not applicable in the present case.

The respondents-pensioners, appearing in person, submit
that all of them were considered for the revised pay scale in
accordance with the then prevailing guidelines of the UGC. All of
them were given the pay scale of Lecturer (Selection Scale) after
the screening carried out by the competent authority in
accordance with the UGC guidelines, in which their academic
16
achievements, including the refresher and orientation courses and
research materials at the time of screening was considered. They
were found suitable and were awarded the pay scale of Lecturer
(selection scale). They were all entitled to the revision of their
pensions in accordance with the recommendations of the Sixth
Pay Commission, on the same post which they held on the date of
their retirement. It is submitted by them that if they were in
service on 01.01.2006, the new pay scale of Rs.37400-67000
with AGP of Rs.9000/- would have been applicable to them
without the necessity to serve for three years and further, without
reference to any further screening or selection process. They are,
therefore, entitled to the revision of pension, as if they were in
the pay scale corresponding to the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000,
with AGP of Rs.9000/-. It is submitted by them that the entire
argument put up by the State-appellant, based on the creation of
a new pay scale, is misconceived, inasmuch as, it was not
necessary for the incumbents, who were already in the selection
scale to serve for a fresh period of 3 years in service and
screening, for grant of pay scale of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of
Rs.9000/-. It is stated that none of the incumbents, who were
drawing the Selection Scale, were subjected to any fresh period
of service of 3 years and screening before being placed in the pay
scale of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/-. The State-
appellants have arbitrarily created discrimination between the old
pay scale and the new pay scale.
17
The appellants have also relied on a Memorandum, by
which, the Special Secretary to the Government Finance
(Budget), Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, had
decided the issue in terms of para 5 of the Memorandum dated
12.09.2008, which provided that if there is any doubt regarding
fixation of the pension in the new pay scales, the matter would be
referred to the Finance Department. In the Memorandum, the
reason given for holding that the respondents are not entitled to
revision of pension in the corresponding pay scale of Rs.37400-
67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/-, is given as below:
The matter has been considered and it is clarified
that consolidated pension (treated as final basic
pension) shall not be lower than 50% of the sum of the
minimum pay of the post of Lecturer (selection scale)/
Head of Department in the RPB 15600-39100 plus GP
Rs.8000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2008, subject to the condition
that the existing provisions in the rules governing
qualifying service for grant of pension and minimum
pension shall continue to be operative. The Lecturer
(selection scale)/Head of the Department in the RPB
37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/- is further financial
upgradation of the post of Lecturer (selection scale)/
Head of Department and it is not a new post. Hence,
the minimum pay of the post of Lecturer (selection
scale) Head of Department shall be 15600+8000 =
23600/-. The emoluments for the purpose of calculation
of minimum 50% pension of the pay scale of the post in
the case of Lecturer (selection scale)/Head of
Department shall be 23600/- RPB 37400-67000 and
AGP Rs.9000/- shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of calculation of minimum pension of the post
Lecturer (selection scale)/Head of Department.
We find that this question has already been answered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & another vs.
Satya Pal Yadav (supra), whereby the Apex Court upheld the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and
18
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and decided the same issue on
merits. In any case, in order to consider the submissions made in
the written arguments filed today, we have examined the matter
and do not find any good reason to take a different view.
It is admitted that all the respondents were serving as
Lecturers in the Selection Scale on the date of their retirement,
which is prior to 01.01.2006 when the recommendations of the
Sixth

Pay Commission were enforced. It is also admitted that all
the respondents were considered for grant of Selection Scale pay
in accordance with the then prevailing UGC guidelines, under
which they were, after completing 3 years of service subjected to
screening including consideration of their refresher and
orientation courses and research material. They were drawing
their pay in Senior Scale prior to their retirement and thus they
were entitled for revision of their pay scale in accordance with the
corresponding pay scale applicable to their post. The Sixth Pay
Commission recommended for two pay scales of Lecturers
(Selection Scale). The first was applicable to those, who had not
completed 3 years of service in the existing pay scale as on
01.01.2006, and the second category was of those, who have
completed 3 years of service in the existing pay scale as on
01.01.2006 and onwards, subject to the guidelines issued in this
regard. The University Grants Commission Regulations of 2010
could not be given retrospective effect and further these
guidelines were not applicable to those, who were already placed
in the Selection Scale. The respondents, therefore, after the
19
award of the pay scales applicable of Lecturer (Selection Scale),
could not be treated in the lower pay scale as they had completed
3 years of service prior to 01.01.2006. They could not be
artificially placed back into the Selection Scale which was
applicable, to those who had not completed 3 years service in the
existing pay in the Selection Scale as on 01.01.2006.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error
in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
All special appeals are, consequently, dismissed. A copy of
this order be placed in all connected files.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (SUNIL AMBWANI),ACTING C.J.
Mohit
S/1
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Mohit Tak, P.A.

DB1045

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

DB1045

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

Anda mungkin juga menyukai