RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS versus SADHU SINGH on 4 February 2022

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of theRajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench in SB Civil Second AppealNo 282 of 2017.

3. The respondent was appointed on the post of Conductor by theRegional Manager of the appellant at Bikaner. On 25 January 1992, theFinance Department of the Government of Rajasthan issued an OfficeOrder in regard to the grant of the benefit of the first, second and thirdSelection Grades to employees on completing 9, 18 and 27 years ofservice respectively. The Office Order of 25 January 1992 was madeapplicable to the appellant. On 4 January 2003, the respondent wascompulsorily retired from service. During the tenure of his service, therespondent was served with as many as 19 charge-sheets in pursuanceof which he was subject to departmental penalties.

4. The respondent instituted a suit in 2010, nearly seven yearsafter his compulsory retirement seeking the benefit of Selection Gradeon the completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The Additional CivilJudge (Junior Division) decreed the suit partially on 26 March 2012 bydirecting that the respondent shall be entitled to the grant of SelectionGrade from 25 January 1992 on the completion of 9 years of service andthe second Selection Grade pay scale from 7 January 2002 on thecompletion of 18 years of service. The appeal against the judgment of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe trial Judge was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 21 January2017, and eventually, the High Court by its judgment dated 7 August2018 dismissed the Second Appeal.

5. During the course of the hearing, two submissions have beenurged by Dr Charu Mathur, learned counsel who appears on behalf ofBthe appellant. Firstly, it has been submitted that the suit which wasinstituted in 2010, nearly 7 years after the respondent had retired wasbarred by limitation. Secondly, it has been submitted that in order to availof the benefit of the Selection Grade, the employee was required tohave a clean record of service. In the present case, it has been statedthat the respondent was served with as many as 19 charge-sheets andCpenalties. A tabulated statement of the disciplinary penalties imposed onthe respondent has been placed on the record and is extracted below:

D

E

F

G

H

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION &OTHERS v. SADHU SINGH

6. On the other hand, Ms Nidhi, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondent submits that the trial Judge correctly held thatthe suit was instituted in 2010 after the representation of the respondent AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awas rejected and hence was within limitation. Moreover, it was soughtto be urged that the order of compulsory retirement is not a penalty.Finally, learned counsel submitted that the department did not produceadequate evidence to establish all the charge-sheets and the disciplinarypenalties against the respondent.

B7. We shall at the outset deal with the issue of limitation. Therespondent was retired compulsorily from service on 4 January 2003.Original Civil Suit No 41 of 2010 was instituted in 2010. The trial Judgeas well as the first appellate court were of the view that the suit was notbarred by limitation since the representation of the respondent for thegrant of the three Selection Grades was rejected on 18 January 2010.CThe first appellate court, while concurring with the trial Judge also notedthat the “final request” made by the respondent-plaintiff on 18 January2010 was rejected and hence the suit was within limitation.

8. The respondent waited for seven long years after his retirementto pursue a claim for the grant of Selection Grade. This was clearlyDbeyond the residuary period of limitation of three years provided in Article137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963. That apart, in the decisionof this Court in State of Rajasthan and Others vs Shankar LalParmar[1], the Court has considered the ambit of the scheme for SelectionGrade. This Court has held thus:

E“6. Another important and relevant clause in the said order forour perusal is Clause 7, which is also reproduced hereinbelow:

“7. Selection Grades in terms of this order shall be grantedonly to those employees whose record of service issatisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligibleFfor promotion on the basis of seniority shall be consideredto be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the SelectionGrade.”

7. Clause 7 makes it clear that only those employees would beentitled for grant of Selection Grades, whose service record hasGbeen satisfactory and are otherwise eligible for promotion on thebasis of seniority but have not been able to get the same as theremight not be any channel of promotion or for want of sanctionedposts in the cadre.”

9. The Court held that in terms of Clause 7, only those employeeswhose service record has been satisfactory would be entitled to be grantedSelection Grade. In this context, the Court held:

“17. Clause 7 further makes it clear that only those/suchemployees would be entitled to be granted Selection Grade whoseservice record has been satisfactory. This implicitly shows thatthe person who has an untainted, unblemished, clean and unpollutedrecord in service would be treated on a higher pedestal than thosewho have either tainted, blemished, unclean or polluted record.This obviously appears to be a reasonable classification and isunder the ambit and touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.There is neither any ambiguity nor any doubt in the same.”

10. On the touchstone of the above principles, it is evident thatthe respondent had been subjected to several disciplinary proceedingsand as many as 19 charge-sheets were issued against him which resultedin penalties of a varying nature. The service record of the respondentcannot be regarded as untainted or clean.

11. Ms Nidhi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted thatsome of the penalties which were imposed on the respondent werewithout cumulative effect. The consequence of the withholding ofincrements without cumulative effect is that after the period prescribed,the respondent would be entitled to restoration of the original pay scaleor the original pay. However, this does not obviate the position that theimposition of the penalty itself indicates that the service record of theemployee was not satisfactory. Another submission which has been urgedis that the penalties were of a minor nature. Assuming that to be so, it isevident that for the grant of Selection Grade, the respondent did not fulfilthe requirements of a clean record of service. The grant of the SelectionGrade is not a matter of right and was subject to the terms and conditionswhich were stipulated. The respondent failed to fulfill these terms andconditions.

12. For the above reasons, we are of the view that both on thequestion of limitation as well as on merits, the respondent was not entitledto the relief which was sought. The suit instituted by the respondentseven years after he had demitted office was barred by limitation. Thatapart, the respondent failed to meet the basic requirements for theSelection Grade.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A13. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugnedjudgment and order of the High Court dated 7 August 2018. Inconsequence, the suit instituted by the respondent shall stand dismissed.

14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

B

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

(Assisted by : Neha Sharma, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H