Skip to content


Ghasimal Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26 of 1979
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)125
AppellantGhasimal
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....board perse unreasonable--held, he has to be considered from 12-6-72 for substantive promotion as naib tehsildar & all consequential reliefs.;the policy decision of the board of revenue regarding the promotions to the post of naib tehsildar from the list a & b of the land revenue inspectors and from list a only of the inspectors of colonisation department is per se unreasonable at least as regards the case of the petitioner as he was already holding a higher post of sader munsanm equivalent to the post of a naib tehsudar as back as from 15-7-64. the petitioner has to be considered with effect from 12 6 11 for substantive promotion as naib tchsildar. he is also entitled to all the consequential reliefs including his consideration for the post of tehsildar in case he is selected..........in the year 1968 for the sader munsrim and naib fehsaldar was the same and therefore, the post of naib tehsildar and that of sader munsarim were interchargable. the petitioner was ordered to be posted as naib tehsildar vide order dated 8-10-68. however, his order was stayed and, therefore, a number of inspectors filed a writ petition in the high court and get their reversions stayed. as, the petitioner was already holding the post of sader munsariu.hs did not file a writ petition and again joined as sader munsrim. the petitioner again vide order no. 28536 dated 8-10-69 was transferred or promoted as naib tehsildar on ad hocbasic. the board of revenue vide its order no. 19909 dated 17-8-70 transferred the petitioner as naib tehsildar in the colonisation department where he continued to.....
Judgment:

S.N. Deedwania, J.

1. These writ petitions filed by Ghasimal involving a common question of fact regarding his status are proposed to decide by this order. Civil writ petition No. 26/79 is with regard to his claim for pension and the other is with regard to his promotion.

2. Briefly stated the facts are these. The petitioner WJS appointed as 'Amin' in the Settlement Office of the then Jodhpur State and joined his service on 28-5 1944. He was promoted as Kanoongo i.e. Settlement Inspector in the year 1949. On 1-4-1950 the Jodhpur State merged with the united States of Rajasthan. The petitioner continued to work as Inspector when he was promoted as Sader Munsarim vide order No. 7515 dated 15-7-1964 on temporary and ad hoc basis by the Board of Revenue. He continued to work on this post upto 8-9 79. The pay scale in the year 1968 for the Sader Munsrim and Naib fehsaldar was the same and therefore, the post of Naib Tehsildar and that of Sader Munsarim were interchargable. The petitioner was ordered to be posted as Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 8-10-68. However, his order was stayed and, therefore, a number of Inspectors filed a writ petition in the High Court and get their reversions stayed. As, the petitioner was already holding the post of Sader Munsariu.hs did not file a writ petition and again joined as Sader Munsrim. The petitioner again vide order No. 28536 dated 8-10-69 was transferred or promoted as Naib Tehsildar on ad hocbasic. The Board of Revenue vide its order No. 19909 dated 17-8-70 transferred the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar in the colonisation Department where he continued to hold this post up to his superannuation. The respondents Nos. 4-14 who were junior to the petitioner have been pro noted to the posts of Tehsildar ignoring the claim of the petitioner. Their seniority position as it stood on 25-9-69 is given below:

Name of the person Seniority assigned to the nonpetitioners in the list of 25-9-691. Shri Ghasimal (petitioner) 1512. Shri Bal Kishan 1593. Shri Gyan Singh 1874. Shri Narpat Singh 2015. Shri Than Singh 2026 Shri Kapil Deo (listed Naib Tehsildar at No. 42) 2067. Shri Hanman Prasad 2268. Shri Bhanwar lal Jain 2649. Shri Ishaq Mohd. 29810. Shri Mohammad Akhtar Ali 30711. Shri Nemi Chand (these persons have not shown in this list. As such these were not confirmed Inspectors prior12. Shri Bach Raj to 1-11-56.)

3. Respondent Balkishan was promoted as Tehsildar in the year 1971 and the others in the year 1972-73. The seniority list of the Inspectors, Land Records, Settlement Department and Colonisation was revised in 1966-67 and ultimately revised on 25-9-69, in which the name of the petitioner was shown at No. 151 and the following officers junior to him were confirmed as Sader Munsarims with effect from 16-8-72:

1. Shri Salig Ram Sader Munsarim 1542. Shri Shambhoosingh -do- --Shri Suraj Bhan -do- 236Shri Jagdishnarain -do- 371Shri Ramniwas Sharma -do- 236Shri Bal Singh -do- 321

4. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer issued an order dated 12-6-72 by which 62 substantive Inspectors were selected to the post of Naib Tebsildars. The case of the petitioner was not considered for the selection of these posts.

5. The petitioner was working as Sader Munsarim in Settlement Department from 1964-69 and respondents No. 4,5 and 7 were working as Settlement Inspectors under the petitioner. Respondents Nos.4,8 and 10-12 were promoted as Naib Tehsildar on 8-10-1969 alongwith the petitioner. Non-petitioner No. 9 was promoted as Sader Munsarim in the year 1967 and thereafter as Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1970. Thus the respondents Nos.4-12 have been promoted on the post of Tehsildar or an equivalent post of Assistant Settlement Officer ignoring the claim of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner's case was not considered for promotion to the post of Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar and further his case for confirmation on the post of Naib Tehsildar was not at all considered while his juniors were so confirmed. The petitioner has claimed relief in the alternative as follows:

(a) for confirmation to the post of Sader Munsarim with effect from 21-7-64. He has worked on that post against the clear vacancy for about 6 years. He is otherwise fit to hold the past.

(b) for confirmation to the post of Naib Tehsildar and to place him at an appropriate place in the seniority list.

(c) for the appointment to the post of Tehsildar as the persons junior to the petitioner have been appointed as Tehsildars and those working as such for more than three months.

In writ petition No. 26/79 the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:

By an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay to the petitioner his pension after properly fixing him at the appropriate post according to law and pay the same forthwith and continue to pay monthly hereafter.

By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to pay the petitioner his gratuity.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.

Costs of the writ petition may be allowed to the petitioner.

7. The State in its reply has not disputed the facts as given by the petitioner except as lo some minor errors in the dates. It is also admitted that the petitioner's service record has been unblemished. His annual confidential rolls were satisfactory. The persons junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Inspectors came to be promoted as Tehsildars on urgent temporary basis in 1971-73 as a policy decision was taken by the Board of Revenue that the Inspectors Land Records finding place in lists A & B & Inspectors Settlement Department & Colonisation Department included in list A should only be promoted as Tehsildars. The petitioner was placed in category B on the basis of his service record.

8. The petitioner left the Settlement Department on 13-10-1969 for joining as Naib Tehsildar under Collector, Bikaner on 14-10-1969. The Settlement Department was made permanent for the first time vide order dated 22-2-69. and various posts in the Department were made permanent. Those who served the department on 14-8-70 were confirmed. All such Settlement Inspectors and Sadar Munsarims who had left the Settlement Department before 14 8-70 on being appointed to Rajasthan Tehsildar Service could not seek confirmation on any post of Settlement Inspector and Sadar Munsarim. The petitioner, therefore, had no claim in the Settlement.

9. The Board of Revenue by mistake treated the Settlement Inspectors having their appointment prior to 14-8-70 as substantive Inspectors and under this mistaken notion inter laced their seniority with substantive Inspectors Land Records and published the same on 25-9-69. As the Inspectors in the Settlement Department were not substantive their cases could not be considered for substantive promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildars and Tehsildars. The matter was taken up with the Government to make provisions in the State Service rules for regularising the case of such left out personnel and the necessary provision was made by inserting Sub-Rule (2) in Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) containing a screening provision. The case of the petitioner could not be placed before the Screening Committee as he had already retired on 30-4-76

10. The petitioner was promoted as Tehsildar on urgent temporary basis on 8-11-74 and thereafter on attaining superannuation age of 55 years he retired from the post of officiating Tehsildar on 30-4-76. In short the petitioner could not be considered for the substantive posts of Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar because he did not hold the rank of a substantive Inspector. When rule 7 of the Rules came to be inserted the case of the petitioner for substantive promotion as Naib Tehsildar could not be considered by the Screening Committee as he had already retired on 30-4-76. It is further stated that the Government took a sympathetic view and sanctioned him pensionary benefits for the post of Tehsildar as are admissible to permanent employees. The Government filed the reply on 1-4-81. The rejoinder stated that the Government has realised mistake and by order dated 19-6-79 held the petitioner as permanent Settlement Inspector and his name was included in the seniority list as on 1-11-56 at serial No. 211. This order is annexure 2. It is also stated that the policy decision of the Board of Revenue was an irrelevant consideration as far as the petitioner was concerned as he was already holding a higher post of Sadar Munsarim from 21-7-64. As already stated the claim of the petitioner for pension has been recognised by the Government ultimately. In this view the writ petition No. 26/79 has become infructuous.

11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the petition carefully.

12. The Government has now hardly a case to resist the claim of the petitioner having passed order dated 19-6-79 in the following terms:

mijksDr fo'k; es vkids i= la0 ih0 vkj0 1@ih- ,Q- 313@77&78@4915 fnukad 4&3&79 ds lUnHkZ es funsZ'kkuqlkj fuosnu gS fd Jh /kklhey HkaMkjh lsok fuo`Rr rglhynkj& eq0 vfHkys[k fujks/kd ds in ij LFkkbZ gS blfy, mukd uke fnukad1&11&56 dh ofj'Brk lwph es dza0 la0 211 ij gS A ofj'Brk lwph dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi layXu dh tk jgh gS A

vr% Jh HkaMkjh dk isa'ku dsl rS;kj djus dh d`ik djs A

13. The claim of the petitioner for substantive promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildars can hardly be resisted because it is an admitted position that his claim for promotion was ignored under the mistaken notion that he was not a substantive Inspector. The policy decision of the Board of Revenue regarding the promotions to the post of Naib Tehsildar from the list A & B of the land revenue Inspectors and from list A only of the inspectors of Colonisation Department is per se unreasonable at least as regards the case of the petitioner as he was already holding a higher post of Sadar Munsarim equivalent to the post of a Naib Tehslidar as back as from 15-7-64. It is evident from the allegations contained in para 9 of the petition that the Board of Revenue Ajmer by an order dated 12-6 77 promoted as many as 62 persons for the post of Naib Tehsildars. The case of the petitioner was not considered as his name was in list B. I have already held that this policy decision of the Board of Revenue regarding the Inspectors Colonisation was unreasonable as far as the petitioner was concerned. It is also admitted position that some of the respondents were substantively promoted as Naib Tehsildars by the order of the Board of Revenue dated 12-6-72 without considering the case of the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate could not advance any argument as to how the claim of the petitioner for promotion as substantive Naib Tehsildar with effect from 12-6-72 could be ignored. It was futile to argue by the learned Government Advocate that the case of the petitioner was not considered for substantive appointments to the posts of Naib Tehsildars and Tehsildars as he was not a substantive Inspector. This argument does not hold water as ultimately the Government realised its mistake and by annexure 2 already extracted above recognised the petitioner as a substantive Inspector and assigned him the seniority at serial No. 211 in the seniority list of the Inspectors as on 1-11-56. It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner was compelled to take recourse to costly litigation inspite of having a just claim. Even his claim for pension was not recognised initially and received a belated recognition after his superannuation vide annexure 2. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner has to be considered with effect from 12-6-72 for substantive promotion as Naib Tehsildar. He is also entitled to all the consequential reliefs including his consideration for the post of Tehsildar in case he is selected as substantive Naib Tehsildar with effect from 12-6-72.

14. In the result, the writ petition 958/74 is accepted with costs assessed at Rs. 700/- and it is directed that the case of the petitioner for substantive promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar be considered with effect from 12-6-72. He shall get all consequential reliefs as indicated above. The claim of the petitioner for pension also be suitably revised if his pay is increased as a result of this order. However, no separate order need be passed in the writ petition No. 26/79 as his claim for pension was only on the basis of his existing pay.


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