Kan Singh, J.
1. The second appeal before me arises out of a suit by the respondent questioning the validity of a Government order by which the order of fixation of the respondent's salary was superseded. The plaintiff had sought the relief for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,85852 paise wrongly deducted from his salary.
2. The appeal involves a question regarding the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Unifications of Pay Scales) Rules, 1950 read in conjunction with the Schedule appended to the Rules.
3. Khem Chand, plaintiff-respondent was an Auditor in the Office of the Accountant General of erstwhile Bikaner State. After the formation of Rajasthan be come to be posted as a Treasury Accountant with effect from 1.10.1949 in the grade of Rs. 100-6-130 10 200 vide Ex. 3 At the relevant time the Office of the Accountant General. Rajasthan was under the Government of the United State of Rajasthan. When there was Federal Financial Integration the office of the Accountant General came under the Auditor General of India. Then there was bifurcation of the services. The personnel who remained under the State Government were dealt with according to the integration procedure. On 10-5-54 the Rajpramukh sanctioned the set up of Accountants vide Ex. 4. According to this order 76 permanent posts were sanctioned along with 17 temporary posts in the cadre of Accountants. Thereafter a departmental examination was held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in December, 1954 for confirming the Accountants. The plaintiff respondent had passed the examination and accordingly he was made substantive Accountant with effect from 10-5-54 vide order Ex. 5. The grade of Accountants in the integrated set up was Rs. 150-10-250. Thereafter the question of the fixation of the salary of the plaintiff-respondent was taken up and be was allowed to draw Rs. 5,858 52 paise as arrears of his salary. The plaintiff was allowed the (salary in the grade of Rs. 150 10 220-E8 10-250 with effect from 1-4-50. It appears that subsequently a different opinion was taken regarding this fixation. The plaintiff was told that his fixation in the integrated set up with effect from 1-4-50 was not in order and, therefore, he should refund the arrears of salary that had been drawn by him. The amount was then recovered from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit in the court of the Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, challenging the order changing his date for the salary from 1.4.50 to 10.5.54.
4. The suit was contested by the State of Rajasthan. The stand taken by the State was that as the posts of Accountants came into existence from 10-5-54 only vide Government order Ex. 4, the plaintiff was not entitled to draw the salary in this grade from any earlier date.
5. The learned Additional Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's salary had been fixed up correctly effective from 1-4-50 and the subsequent order superseding the earlier fixation was bad. The learned Additional Civil Judge, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's suit for the sum of Rs. 5,858 52 paise.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge the State went up in appeal to the District Court, Jaipur but without any success.
7. It is in these circumstances that the Sate has come in further appeal to this Court.
8. There is no controversy on facts. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the fixation of the plaintiff's salary in the scale of Rs. 150-10-220-EB-10 250 was correct. Learned Additional Government Advocate contends that as the posts of Accountants themselves were created by the State Government in 1954. the plaintiff could not have been fixed up with effect from 1-4-50. Learned Additional Government Advocate maintains that these were newly created posts & the plaintiff was appointed substantively on the post of Accountant after he had taken the departmental examination. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate went to the length of submitting that these posts were not in the integrated set up or in the integrated service as he put it. Now, at this point I may read the relevant Rules, Before doing that I may, however, briefly refer to the process of integration of services that was, by and large, undergone in Rajasthan.
9. When the several Indian States in what was then Rajasthan agreed to form a Union of States, the arrangement resulted in the extinction of the former States and the formation of a new State. So far as the servants or employees of the ex-States were concerned there would undoubtedly be the change of masters. The new master was not bound to employ the servants of the erstwhile States in the absence of any undertaking or stipulation to that effect. With a view to safeguarding the interests of the State employees a provision was made in the covenant for the formation of Rajasthan that the service conditions of the civil servants of the covenanting States as they were on the 1st of November, 1949 were guaranteed and the terms to be offered to such civil servants by the new State would not be less advantageous to what the civil servants were having. Here I am not dealing with the question about the justiciability of such a provision in the covenant, but the covenant does show that a provision was made for safeguarding the legitimate interests of the civil servants. The new State thus had to deal with a number of civil servants. The pay scales for similar posts in the various integrating units were not uniform, nor were the nomenclatures. Therefore, for the integration of certain services the principle of selection based on suitability of the individual was adopted. In case of less important services they were to be integrated as a matter of course on the basis of the length of service of the employees and so on.
10. To start with the civil servants continued to get what they were getting as employees of the covenanting States. After sometime the new State wanted to bring about some measure of uniformity in pay grades by providing ad hoc pay scales and later on when experience was gained, regular cadres were formed for the various services. Then the statutory Rules for defining the service conditions including the pay scales for various posts and cadres were made. It is in this way that the cadre of Accountants came to be formed and the Rajasthan Civil Services (Unification of Pay Scales) Rules, 1950 were made One thing more has to be remembered here and it is that in some Departments integration was done promptly and regular cadres and pay scales therefore came into being soon. The integration for several departments, however, took considerable time.
11. It is in this background that I am now proceeding to refer to the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Unification of Pay Scales) Rules, 1950.
12. These Rules were made by the Rajpramukh under Article 309 of the Constitution. They give definition of certain terms. The term 'Pre-1950 entrant', according to Rule 2(c) means a Government servant other than a pre-Covenant entrant who was appointed temporarily to a post after the formation of Rajasthan but before 1st April 1950. The term 'Pre-covenant entrant' means a Government servant who held in a substantive capacity, a permanent post in one of the Covenanting States or had a lien on such a post or would have held a lien if it, had not been suspended. The term 'Post in the integrated service' means a post borne on the cadre of an integrated service or in a department organised in accordance with orders issued by the Government of Rajasthan in the Integration Department. Then comes Rule 3 which I may read in full:
Rule 3. The rates of pay shown in the Schedule shall apply with effect from 1st April, 1950 to:
(a) All Post-1950 entrants;
(b) Pre-1950 entrants who may be appointed after 1st April, 1950 to a post borne on the cadre of an integrated service,
(c) Pre-Covenant entrants, who, being appointed to posts in an integrated service elect these rates of pay.
In the Schedule the service posts, services or departments are enumerated. The Schedule has been amended from time to time, to make it upto date.
13. Now Rule 3 clearly lays down as to from what data the rates of pay shown in the Schedule shall apply and the date given is 1st April, 1950. These rates of pay are admissible to all post-1950 entrants, those who came to be appointed after 1st April, 1950, to all Pre-1950 entrants, that is, those who came to be appointed in the new State after its formation but before 1-4-50. The persons who were pre-Covenant entrants were not included in this clause. Then these Rules shall apply to pre-covenant entrants who satisfy two conditions firstly, they are appointed to posts in an integrated service, and secondly, they elect these rates of pay. Therefore, for determining whether the plaintiff respondent would be entitled to get the rates of pay shown in the Schedule from 1-4-50 the Court has to be satisfied (1) that he was a pre-covenant entrant (2) that he was appointed to a post in an integrated service, and (3) that he has elected these rates of pay. There is no dispute here that the plaintiff was a pre-covenant entrant, nor is there any dispute about his having elected these rates of pay. Therefore, the only controversy that is raised is whether he was appointed to a post in an integrated service. For this one has to look to the order of the plaintiff's appointment. It is Ex. 5 and I may read it in full:
Government of Rajasthan
(Accounts & Audit Section)
No. F. 5(10) F.D. (A & A)/55. Dated Jaipur, June 27, 1955
The under mentioned 'pre-covenant entrants'' are appointed substantive Accountants with effect from the 10th May, 1954, in the integrated set-up of Accountants sanctioned in Finance Department letter No. F 8 (26) Acctts.-54/440, dated the 10th May, 1954, as amended:
1 Shri Babulal Gupta Bhilwara Treasury2 ' Bhonreylal Alwar Treasury3 ' Hari Prasad Barmer Treasury4 ' Khem Chand Sharma Churu Treasury5 ' Mohanlal Kochar Bikaner Treasury6 ' Murli Lal Jodhpur Treasury7 ' Nahar Singh Udaipur Treasury8 ' Prahlad Kishan Sikar Treasury9 ' Prem Raj Rajastban High Court, Jodhpur10 ' Ram Baboo Jain Jhunjhunu Treasury11 ' Ram Krishna Sharma Dungarpur Treasury12 ' Rishabhlal Jain Jhalawar Treasury13 ' Roop Shankar Kanjolia Commissioner's Office Kotah14 ' Sampat Raj Gemawat, Jodhpur Treasury15 ' Shree Lal Nagori Commissioner's Office Udaipur(temporarily attached to CivilSupplies Deptt; Udaipur)16 ' Surya Narain Sawai Madhopur Treasury17 ' Tej Raj Dhanetia Sirohi TreasuryShri Shree Lal Nagori, Accountant, is transferred from the Office of the Accounts Officer, Civil Supplies Department, Udaipur, to the Office of the Commissioner, Udaipur Division. Sd/- (S Parshad)Dy. SECY. To Government
14. This order unmistakably shows that the plaintiff like others shown in the order was a pre-covenant entrant and he was appointed substantively as an Accountant in the integrated set up of Accountants. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate wanted to draw a distinction between the expression used in this order namely, 'integrated set up' & as mentioned in the definition 'the post in the integrated service.' Learned Addl. Government Advocate maintained that there was distinction between 'integrated service' and the expression 'integrated set up'. There is no doubt the words used in the two expressions are not the same. I know in the English language when different words are used there may be different shades of meaning, but the question here is what was really meant by the term 'integrated set up' in Government order Ex. 5. The term 'integrated set up' is an expression with a wider meaning than the expression 'integrated service'. The term 'integrated set up' would connote the new structure of the State or a Department for that matter in a generic sense. In others words, that will comprise the whole structure that has come into being as a result of the constitutional changes. The term 'integrated service' will confine itself to a particular service, cadre or department, but here essentially there is no difference. Perusal of the two orders Ex. 4 by which the posts were sanctioned and Ex. 5 by which the appointments were made shows that a cadre of Accountants was created in the new set up which has been characterised as the integrated set up. This will be nothing but integrated service within the meaning of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Unification of Pay Scales) Rules, 1950 It is, therefore, a quibble over words only and there is no manner of doubt that the plaintiff was appointed to a post in an integrated service. Once the conditions embodied in Rule 3 are satisfied then there is no manner of doubt that the rates of pay shown in the Schedule shall apply to the civil servant concerned with effect from 1-4-50. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate endeavoured to show some entries in the Schedule that different dates have been provided for certain posts. Since the Rules cover not only such of the pre-covenant entrants who, on being appointed to posts in the integrated service, elect these Rules of pay but also all post 1950 entrants or pre-1950 entrants the Schedule in the very nature of things would show different dates when new posts may be created. Learned Additional Government Advocate started with the post of Inspector General of Prisons at page 26 of the 1955 publication. About the grade against this post it is mentioned that it will take effect from 9-8-52. No such date is mentioned regarding the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Superintendent Central Jails. I inquired if the Inspector General of Prisons was altogether a new post created in Rajasthan. To my knowledge similar posts bearing the designation of Inspector General of Prisons did not exist in any of the Covenanting States. One Dr. Kutre was holding the post at the relevant time according to the civil list that was seen. Learned Additional Government Advocate could not question the submission of the other side that Shri Kutre was not an employee of any of the former States. Therefore, this example did not bear out that every one who came to be fixed up in the integrated set up was to get the salary according to the rates of pay prescribed on the Rajasthan Civil Services (Unification of Pay Scales) Rules, 1950 from a date later than 1-4-50 according the date of appointment. I need not refer to few other examples as the learned Additional Government Advocate could not show that these were held by pre-covenant employees who came to be fixed up in the integrated service or integrated set up. Normally a civil servant will be entitled to get the pay scales attached to a post only from the date the post is created or from the date when he is appointed to that post for that matter. But the position was different in the case of the employees of the ex-States who come to be appointed in the integrated set up of Rajasthan. For them Rule 3 is quite clear. There is a good reason for it. As I have observed already, the process of integration was a lengthy one, whereas for some cadres service or departments integration was done quickly, for others it was considerably delayed. The Rule Making Authority may have thought that the delay in the process of integration should not put the employees of the Departments or Service in which the integration has been delayed at a disadvantage in comparison to the civil servants who came to be integrated without so much delay. That is why it has been laid down in mandatory form that the rates of pay shown in the Schedule shall apply with effect from 1-4-50 to pre-covenant entrants who being appointed to posts in integrated service elect these rates of pay. Since this was an important matter, as a matter of fact I inquired from the learned Additional Government Advocate to enlighten the Court by telling if he can cite any examples of departments, services or cadres in which though the integration was done after 1-4-50 the pay scales were not allowed from 1-4-50. A lot of services like R.A.S.R.J.S., were mentioned to the learned Additional Government Advocate, because it is well known that these cadres were constituted in 1981. Many persons were in these cadres and I wanted him to tell the Court if the fixation in the case of R.A.S. and R.J.S. also was not done w.e.f. 1-4-50. He was given sufficient time to ascertain the position, but he did not render any assistance to the court in this regard. On the other hand, the respondent has filed an affidavit on 18-10-72 along with an annexure wherein he has stated that in several cases in which salaries according to Unified Pay Scales were paid from 1-4-50 although the Schedule was amended later on.
15. Apart from everything one Government decision which was noted under Rule 81 of the Rajasthan Service Rules was brought to my notice. It read like this:
As benefit of unified pay scale has been allowed to all Government servants from 1-4-1950. His Highness the Rajpramukh has been pleased to extend the decision contained in F.D. Memo No. F. 10(1) F 11/53, dated 5-10-1953 to cover also cases of leave taken during the period from 1-4-1950 to 31-3-1951.
I know this was a decision for leave cases and that is why the decision is reproduced under Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, but what is important in this decision is the recital that the benefit of Unified pay scale had. been allowed to all Government servants from 1-4-50. The learned Additional Govt. Advocate was not able to bring on record any material worth the name for showing that this recital was wrong. This was specifically noted in the Court's order dated 23-10-72 and time was allowed to the Additional Government Advocate to make proper inquires and then make his submission in this behalf. Further time was allowed on 31-10-72 for ascertaining the correct position. I have, therefore, no reason to think that benefit of the Unified Pay Scale was not so given to the pre-covenant servants from 1-4-50 even though they came to be fixed by in the integrated service after 1-4-50.
16. In the circumstances I am unable to hold that the two courts below were in error in decreeing the plaintiff's suit.
17. The appeal has thus no force and it is hereby dismissed with costs.