Skip to content


Gopikishan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 329/1980
Judge
Reported in1983WLN(UC)9
AppellantGopikishan
RespondentState of Rajasthan and anr.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....to be fixed retrospectively in grade-i of male nurse compounder under the unification of pay scales rules, 1950.;the petitioner is not en tiled to the relief claimed by him in his writ petition.;(b) consitution of india-article 226--delay--demand justice notice served on 11-4-76 and writ filed on 18-9-1979--petitioner alleges that government accused orally consideration of his claim--neither name nor details of authority given who gave assurance--held, bare allegation does not amount to sufficient cause for condoning delay.;the petitioner admitted to have served a notice for demand of justice on the respondents on 11-4-76 and he did not file any writ petition after that date till 18th september, 1979. .;the explanation given by the petitioner for this delay is that he was given an..........the merger, the petitioner was fixed in grade-i male-nurse compounder under the rationalised pay scales rules, 1956, w. e. f. 22-5-1956, as is evident from the provisional seniority list issued by the director of medical & health services, rajasthan on 3-6-70. since then petitioner has been working in the aforesaid grade-i. his grievance now is that he ought to have been fixed in grade-1 w. e. f. june 18, 1955 or which date he acquired qualifications to hold that post. the petitioner cited instances of several persons who were fixed in grade-i w. e. f. date of their acquiring requisite qualifications, port of in the writ petitions filed by some of them.4. the petitioner waited for the orders of the government in the earnest hope that he would also be given the same benefit as was given.....
Judgment:

K.D. Sharma, C.J.

1. Gopi Kishan, petitioner, has invoked the extra-ordinery jurisdiction of this Court by. way of this writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to fix the petitioner under the Unified Pay Scales w. e. f. 18-6-1955, on which date be acquired the requisite qualifications for the post of Male-Nurse Compounder Grade-1 and to give him all consequential benefits arising form such fixation.

2 The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner passed bis High School Examination in the year 1947 and passed the Punjab Nurses Registration Council Examination also, as is evident from the certificate issued to him on 19-2-1955.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of a temporary compounder vide order of Civil Surgeon, then State of Ajmer, on 18-4-1955. Thereafter, when the State of Rajasthan was formed, the petitioner opted the Services of the Re-organised State of Rajasthan and was appointed temporarily to the post of Staff Nurse in the department of Medical and Health Services vide order of the Director dated 1-11-1956. After the merger, the petitioner was fixed in Grade-I Male-Nurse Compounder under the Rationalised Pay Scales Rules, 1956, w. e. f. 22-5-1956, as is evident from the Provisional Seniority List issued by the Director of Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan on 3-6-70. Since then petitioner has been working in the aforesaid Grade-I. His grievance now is that he ought to have been fixed in Grade-1 w. e. f. June 18, 1955 or which date he acquired qualifications to hold that post. The petitioner cited instances of several persons who were fixed in Grade-I w. e. f. date of their acquiring requisite qualifications, port of in the writ petitions filed by some of them.

4. The petitioner waited for the orders of the Government in the earnest hope that he would also be given the same benefit as was given to Shri Girraj Singh and Kishan Singh, but his case was not cosnidered despite notice given by him to the Rajasthan Government through his counsel on 11-4-76. The Government did not give, any reply to the notice and so the petitioner had no other option but to file this writ petition for seeking redress of his grievances on the grounds mentioned in para No. 20 clauses (i) to (viii) of his writ petition. The petitioner put in his own affidavit in support oft he contents of the writ petition.

5. In the first instance, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why this writ petition be not admitted. The respondents appeared through Government Advocate in response to the show-cause notice and file a. written reply. Thereafter, the writ petition was admitted by this Hon'ble Court on 20-8-82.

6. The Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents denied the claim of the petitioner for fixation in Grade-I w. e. f. 18th June. 1955, and further stated in the written reply that the petitioner was fixed in grade-I Compounder under the Rationalisation of Pay Scales Rules, 1956, w. e. f. 22-6-1956, and that he was not entitled to be fixed under the Rajasthan Civil Services Unification of Pay Scales Rules, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rule of 1950'), as he did not exercise such option. It was further urged in the written-reply that the petitioner did not afford any reasonable explanation for the in ordinate delay in filing the writ petition. According to respondents, the petitioner ought to haved produce any document which may show that the petitioner was given an assurance in this behalf by the State Government. On the other hand, when the petitioner was fixed in Grade-I Compounder under the Rationalised Pay Scales, he did not file any representation or make any grievance in this behalf by giving a notice for demand of justice till 1976. It was further urged by the respondents in their reply that no discriminatory treatment was meted out the petitioner, as no person junior to the petitioner was given benefit under the Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1956'). In support of the contention of the reply Shri Sajjan Singh, Deputy Director, Medical & Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur, swore an affidavit.

7. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. H. N. Calla, Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2.

8. The short question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner was entitled to Male-Nurse Compounder. Grade-I w. e. f. 18-6-55 on which date he claimed to have acquired the requsite qualification for fixation in the said grade. Before dealing with this question, I would like to observe that according to petitioner himself, he opted the service of the State of Rajasthan after the merger of State of Ajmer in it and was appointed as temporary Staff Nurse in the department of Medical and Health Services, by order of the Director dated 1-11-1956. It will be not out of place to mention that the State of Ajmer was merged with the State of Rajasthan on the appointed date i.e. 1-11-56. Prior to 1-11-56, the petitioner was initially appointed as a temporary compounder by order of Civil Surgeon of the State of Ajmer on 11- 6-55, when he opted the services of the State of Rajasthan after the merger of the territories of Ajmer State in it, the petitioner was fixed in Grade- 1 of the Compounder and Male-Nurse under the Rationalised Pay Scales, 1956, w.e.f. 22-5-56 as is admitted by him para No. 6 of his writ petition He could not be fixed in Grade-I of Compounder and Male-Nurse under the Rules, of 1950 because at the time when he opted services of Rajasthan Government after the merer of State of Ajmer with it, the Rajasthan Civil Services Rationalisation of Pay Scales Rules and Schedules 1956, had come into force w.e.f. 1st March, 1956 and his case was governed by these rules.

9. Rule 3 of the said Rules applied to revised rates of pay w.e.f. of 1-3-56 of post 1955 entrant. The relevant rule is reproduced as under:

Rule 3 - The revised rates of pay as prescribed in the Schedule or subsequently added to the Schedule shall apply with effect from 1-3-56 to--

(a) All post 1956 entrants.

(b) Pre 1956 entrants drawing pay in the unified pay scales who do not opt to retain their old pay Under Rule 4.

(c) Pre 1956 entrants drawing pay in the unit scales who elect these rates of pay.

10. As the petitioner entered in the service of Government of Rajasthan after 1st March, 1956, the revised rates of pay as prescribed in the schedule were applicable to him under Rule-3 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules and Schedules, 1956) and in fact he was fixed in the Grade-I Male-Nurse Compounder on the revised pay prescribed in the Schedule appended to the aforesaid rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not succeed in showing how the petitioner was entitled to be fixed retro-spectively in Grade-I of Male-Nurse Compounder under the Unification of Pay Scales Rules, 1950.

11. As stated earlier, he was governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules 1956. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by him in his writ petition

12. Apart from this the petitioner filed the writ petition after consider able delay. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an impression was created in the mind of the petitioner by the Government that his case would be dealt with favourably, is not acceptable, because the petitioner admitted to have served a notice for demand of justice on the respondents on 11-4 76 and he did not file any writ petition after that date till 18th September, 1979. The explanation given by the petitioner for this delay is that he was given an oral assurance by the Government that his case was under consideration. The petitioner did not mention in his writ petition that at which place and which person or authority had given him oral assurance. In his affidavit also he did not mention the name of the authority or the person who had assured him that his would be considered. In view of such a vague allegation, I am unable to hold that the petitioner was prevented to file the writ petition earlier on account of any sufficient cause.

13. The result of the above discussion is that the above writ petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //