IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR

RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3589/2017

PETITIONERS:

Suresh Chandra Sharma & Ors..

V E R S U S

RESPONDENTS:

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

REPLY TO THE WRIT PETITION ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5

To

The Honble Chief Justice and His Lordships

other Companion Honble Judges of the High

Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.

* * * * * *

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

The humble answering respondent most

respectfully submit the following reply to the writ

petition filed by the petitioners as infra:-

 That before giving the para-wise reply to the

Writ Petition the answering respondent herein would

like to submit the following preliminary objections :

That the present Writ Petition is not

maintainable to the extent that apparently a

misinterpretation of the Finance Department

Notifications was made whereas the re-fixation of

pay as per the Revised Pay Scale Rules 2008

amended with effect from 01.07.2013, in which the

current pay of employees was to be changed

without any change in the running pay and it was

applicable to the petitioners herein. The view so

pointed out by the petitioners is not only against

the Rules of Pay Scale of 2008 but also would result

into further misinterpretation of rule 24 & 28 of the

Rule 2008 and hence the present writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

The answering respondent would like to

submit the reply to the Writ Petition. The para

wise reply to the Writ Petition is as follow:

 REPLY TO WRIT PETITION

Without prejudice to preliminary objections

mentioned hereinabove the humble answering

respondent submit following reply to the writ

petition. It is also stated that all the averments of

the writ petition are denied unless the same are

specifically admitted by the answering

respondent.

1. That the para no. 1 and 2 of the writ

petition needs no reply from the answering

respondent.

2. That the contents of the para No.3 & 4 as

relates to the appointment of the petitioners, is

not denied to the extent that the initially the

appointment is to be done as probationer

trainee and it was only after completing

probation period successfully on or after

01.09.2006 the probationer trainee by

successful completion of the probation period

would be allowed pay in the running pay band

and grade pay. The same has been made clear

in the Rule 22 of the Rules so adopted by the

answering respondents namely Rajasthan Civil

Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The copy of

the Rules shall be kept ready at the time of

argument. It is relevant to mention here that

the petitioners were appointed in the year 2012

and pay fixation after the probation was done

as per the Rule 24 of the Revised Pay Rules of

2008 and as per the Rule 24, in case of

promotion from one grade pay to another the

fixation was to be done on the ground of one

increment being equal to 3% of the sum of the

pay in the running pay band and it was on this

ground the existing pay grade was computed

and for the convenience rounded off to the

next multiplier of 10. It is further mentioned

here that as per the Rule 24 the grade pay

corresponding to the promotional post will be

granted thereafter in addition to the running

pay band. The second case so incorporated was

whether the promotion involves change in the

running pay band also. On such particular

 cases also the aforementioned methodology so

prescribed in the Rules was to be followed.

However, pay in the running band after the

increment is less than the minimum of the

higher pay band of each promotion as taken

place, pay in the running band will be stepped

to such minimum. Hence, the fixation of the

petitioners in the present case was done by the

aforementioned methodology and apparently a

bare calculation would reveal that the same

was done wrongly.

3. That in reply to the para no. 5 and 6 to

the writ petition, it is submitted that the Rule

22 of the Revised Pay Rules of 2008, after the

completion of probation training period such

probationers will be allowed entire pay in

running pay band and the grade pay for the

direct recruit appointed on or after 01.01.2006

on satisfactory completion of the probation

period, but herein petitioners are not the direct

recruitees as on 01.07.2013 and hence, the

Schedule-5 as claimed by the petitioners is not

 applicable. The matter in dispute relates to the

effect that the petitioners want their re-fixation

of pay as on 01.07. 2013 whereas as per the

Revised Pay Rules, 2008 as amended from time

to time grade pay of those employees has to be

changed without there being any change in the

running pay band and it was this which has

been made applicable to the present petitioners

also, therefore, the recovery so ordered by the

respondent authority is clearly justified. The

contents of Rule 24 as incorporated in para no.

2 of the reply to the writ petition are again

retaliated and again would have been made

applicable to the present case. Therefore, the

contention of the petitioners with regard to pay

band being disturbed and being recovered is

meritless.

4. That the contents of para no. 7 have

been aptly replied in the forgoing paras to the

reply. It is again reiterated that the Rule 22 as

made applicable to the directly recruited

employees is only available on or after

 01.01.2006 and the present petitioners not

being the direct recruitees on 01.07.2013

cannot claim the applicability of Schedule-5

with regards to their pay disproportionate.

5. That the contents of para no. 8 are not

accepted and hence denied. It was only

because of wrong interpretation of the Rules

that the petitioners were granted benefit as

clamed, however, it was only on the receipt of

the audit objection that the correct

interpretation of the Rules came to be realized

that the averments with regard to the benefit

being allowed to the persons junior to the

petitioners are denied, however the answering

respondent herein reserves its right to file

additional reply if so required necessary.

6. That the contents of para no. 9 of the

writ petition has came into light only after the

receipt of the present petition and the re-

fixation in respect of the corporation and it is

only thereafter, the re-fixation statement,

revised fixation statement and recovery

 statement and arrangement for the recovery

were made.

7. That the contents of para no. 10 of the

writ petition are not accepted and hence

denied. That the persons so taking benefit of

Rules are either direct recruitees on or after

1.7.2013 and consequently the Schedule-5

have been made applicable to such employees

of the respondents and therefore, the

discrimination so claimed by the petitioners is

devoid the differentiation as has been

specifically incorporated in the Rules i.e. Rule

22 and Rule 24 specifically. That the

commencement of reasonable classification has

been made in the Rule 22 and Rule 24 of the

Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 and therefore,

the discrimination as so claimed by the

petitioners does not stands on merits.

8. That the averment contents of para no.

11 and 12 are denied in the manner as alleged

by the petitioner. However, the contents with

regard to annexure-5 letter dated 17.01.2017

 and annexure-6 letter dated 14.02.2017 are

not disputed.

9. That the contents of para no. 13 and 14

are replied in the manner that all the

petitioners were appointed on different dates

the details of which shall be kept ready at the

time of argument. Earlier to the date of

revision of pay with effect from 01.07.2013 and

even earlier to the employees of the answering

respondent being promoted on that particular

date so as on 01.07.2013 neither any pay

fixation or promotion was made nor any pay

fixation due to appointment was made by the

answering respondents, hence, a clear

interpretation of the rule as well as the

incorporation of the cut-off date is itself reveal

that any matter of allowing minimum pay to

the present petitioner is not applicable as per

the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 themselves

and hence the petitioner cannot be allowed to

claim such benefit. It is also relevant to

mention here that the minimum pay is allowed

in only two cases, firstly when the new recruit

on completion of the probation period has come

in the pay and then fixation of pay in the

regular pay band as per Annexure-3 to the writ

petition. Secondly, on position where the pay

band itself has changed as per the Rule 28 of

the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 2008. As the

aforementioned case reveals that the

petitioners themselves are not covered in

either of the two cases as incorporated and

hence the claim so raised by the petitioners is

devoid of any merits, also the claim for the

applicability of the Rule 22is itself not

applicable because it only deals with the entire

pay of the fresh appointees and fixation of pay

after completion of the probation period, as the

petitioners are neither qualifies recruited or

promoted on 01.07.2013, no pay fixation is

made applicable as per the claim raised by the

petitioner. Therefore, the contents as afforded

in these paras of the writ petition result into

misinterpretation and misapplication of Rules

which itself cannot be permissible.

10. That the contents of para no. 15 are not

accepted and hence denied. It is only after the

audit objection that it has been observed that

the applicability of the Rules have been

misinterpreted, misapplied and miscalculated

and it is only with this regard the recovery has

been made effective.

It is humbly submitted that all actions

taken by the answering respondent are

perfectly just, legal, valid and strictly in

accordance with the provisions of law, the Act

and the Rules and the writ petition filed by the

petitioners is not maintainable on any of the

grounds raised by them in this para. However,

a parawise reply to the grounds is submitted as

under:-

REPLY TO THE GROUNDS :

That the contents mentioned in the ground no.

(A). to (I). of the writ petition are mere repetition

of the arguments raised in the preceding paras of

the writ petition and therefore, in reply to the

answer of the grounds of the writ petition the

answering respondent most humbly and respectfully

prayed that the facts mentioned in the above para

of this reply to the writ petition may kindly be

considered as the reply to the grounds. The

answering respondent is further giving the reply to

the core issues of the present writ petition.

A. That in reply to the ground A it is submitted

here that the recovery has been initiated on

account of correct interpretation of the Rules

and, secondly, the minutes of the meeting held

on 15.2.2017 and 16.2.2017 are neither

arbitrary, unjust or illegal in any manner. The

misinterpretation and mis-applicability of the

Rules cannot be allowed to be prolonged

further disbursement of public money on

miscalculation and hence, the ground being

devoid of merit the preset writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

B. That the ground B and C of the writ petition

are devoid of substance. As afforded in the

succeeding paras of the reply to the writ

petition, the Rule 22 as claimed by the

petitioners cannot be said to be applicable as

on the cut-off date i.e. 01.07.2013 the

petitioner were not furnished the record of

payment in the matter and consequently, the

applicability of the Schedule-5 cannot be

claimed by the petitioner. It is only as per the

Rule 24 that one increment equal to 3% of the

running pay and the existing grade pay was

computed and consequently applied as per the

methodology incorporated in the Rules. It is in

this regard that the recovery so ordered is just

and hence the petitioner being not entitled to

the fixation of the minimum pay of Rs. 7440 is

neither arbitrary nor violative of any

fundamental rights of the petitioners.

That as per the Rule 28, the two cases so

incorporated for the modification of fixation of

pay in the running pay band have been

equivalently floated and as explained earlier

only two cases in which minimum pay is to be

allowed is in the case new recruitee completed

their probation period and the employee

 promoted where the pay band itself has

changed. The petitioners are being not falling

in the either of the aforementioned case as

incorporated under Rule 28.

C. That the contents of the ground C are not

accepted and hence denied. The petitioners

herein has neither pleaded any violation of

fundamental rights, the present writ petition

only pertains to the misinterpretation of the

Rules which has been validly taken in the audit

objection and further any protection in lieu of

and the Rules which are not itself applicable to

the present petitioner cannot be said to be

made applicable by pendency before any

authority. It is further mentioned here that the

removal of the anomalies of the pay scale does

not only amount to provide benefit to the

petitioners but also amount to correct

interpretation of the Rules and hence the

present writ petition being devoid of merit

deserves to be dismissed.
D. That the contents of ground no. D to the writ

petition are not accepted and hence denied.

The persons so been posted as junior before

this Honble Court are the employees covered

under the direct recruitees as on 01.01.2006

on satisfactory completion of the probation

period and therefore, being made eligible to

Schedule-5 and hence, creating the

differentiation, which is apparent in the Rule

22 of the Revised Pay Rules of 2008 and hence

as such no injustice, illegality or discrimination

has been made by the respondents while acting

as per the Law.

E. That the averment content in ground E are

denied for the reason mention above in detail.

F. That the reply to the contents of ground no. F

& G have already property given in the

preceding paras of this reply to the writ

petition, however, it is again retaliated that no

amount of miscalculation and misinterpretation

of Rules can help the petitioners. The recovery

which has been ordered as per the minutes of

 the meeting is completely justified by the Rules

and their applicability and hence the ground F

and G are devoid of merit.

G. That the contents of ground no. H, I and J are

not accepted and hence denied. That the

petitioners are not entitled to raise any other

ground in the writ petition. The petitioner has

requested for the recovery of the pay fixation

anomalies has been correctly valid. No support

so called, as to the petitioners is being reduced

in basic pay etc. is to be required to be allowed

in ground I to the writ petition as it is only

with regard to the applicability of the Rules. It

is further submitted that the petitioner have

not pleaded or specified any violation of

fundamental right on the ground specifically. If

it is so otherwise the answering respondents

are not in violation of any fundamental rights

of the petitioners and are merely acting as per

the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008. It is

therefore, humbly prayed that the relief so

prayed by the petitioner may be denied for the

 non-applicability of the Rules as pleaded by the

petitioner and hence the present petitioner may

be dismissed.

That in reply to the writ petition, it is

most humbly and respectfully, once again

reiterated by the answering respondent that

the present writ petition is not maintainable

and therefore, the petitioners is not entitled

to invoke the extrao rdinary jurisdiction of this

Honble High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

17. That averment content in Para No. 17 are

matter of record.

18. That averment content in Para No. 18 are

matter of record.

PRAYER

Therefore, it is most humbly and respectfully

prayed that the present reply may kindly be taken

on record and the present writ petition, being

devoid of merit, may kindly be dismissed in Toto.

 Any other appropriate order or the direction

which this Honble Court may deemed just and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

may also kindly be passed in favour of the

answering- respondent and against the petitioners.

JODHPUR

DATED:

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 to 5

(DHANESH SARASWAT, ADVOCATE)

NOTES : -

1. No such reply has been filed prior to this

before this Hon'ble Court

2. As the pie papers are not made readily

available in the market, therefore, typed on

these papers.

3. Typed in my office by my private steno.

4. Copy of the reply has been given to opposite

counsel.

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3589/2017

PETITIONERS :
Suresh Chandra Sharma & Ors.
V E R S U S
RESPONDENTS :
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
REPLY TO WRIT PETITION

I, _____________ S/o Shri______________, aged

about ___ years, _______________________
_____________, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran and
Prasaran Nigam Ltd, _______________________
__________________ do hereby solemnly state on
oath as under:-

1. That I am officer in charge in the instant case

and am fully conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case on the basis of official
record.

2. That the present reply has been drafted by my

counsel under my instructions.

3. That the legal submissions mentioned herein are

believed to be correct on the basis of legal
advice given by my counsel.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
 I, the above named deponent do hereby
solemnly state on oath that the facts mentioned in
the Para No. 1 to 4 of this affidavit are true to my
personal knowledge. No part of its either false and
nothing has been concealed. SO HELP ME GOD.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. ______/2017
IN
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3589/2017

PETITIONERS :
Suresh Chandra Sharma & Ors.
V E R S U S
RESPONDENTS :
State of Rajasthan & Ors

REPLY TO THE STAY APPLICATION ON

BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5
To

The Honble Chief Justice and His Lordships other

Companion Honble Judges of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS;

The answering respondents named above most

humbly and respectfully submit as under:

That the reply to the writ petition in detail

have already been submitted by the present

answering respondent, which may be treated as a

reply of the present stay application also.

For the reasons mentioned in the reply to the

writ petition, it is clear that the petitioners have got

no case in his favour. Thus, is also not entitled for

any kind of interim order as prayed by him. The

writ petition so also the stay application is without

any substance and the same is, therefore, deserves

to be dismissed.

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully

prayed that the interim order, granted by this

Hon'ble Court, may kindly be vacated and the stay

petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be

dismissed.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 2 TO 5

(Dhanesh Saraswat)
Advocates
NOTES

1. That no such reply to stay petition has previously

been filed by the petitioner in this matter before

Hon'ble Court.

2. That pie papers are not available with the stamp

vendors, hence these papers.

3. That it has been typed in my office.

4. I certified that such internal and external

pagination has been done and copy of the reply

has been given to the counsel for the petitioner.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 to 5

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. ______/2017
IN
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3589/2017

PETITIONERS :
Suresh Chandra Sharma & Ors.
V E R S U S
RESPONDENTS :
State of Rajasthan & Ors

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
REPLY TO STAY PETITION

I, _____________ S/o Shri______________,

aged about ___ years, _______________________

_____________, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran and

Prasaran Nigam Ltd, _______________________

__________________ do hereby solemnly state on

oath as under:-

1. That I am the Officer-in-charge in this case and

am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case.

2. That reply to stay petition has been drafted

under my instructions and I have understood
its every contents thoroughly.

3. That contents mentioned in reply to the stay

petition are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge based on official record available
 with me and legal advice given by my counsel
is believed to be true and correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, the above named deponent do hereby verify

that the contents of my above affidavit are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge. No material

has been concealed therein .

SO HELP ME GOD

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. ______/2017
IN
S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3589/2017

PETITIONERS :
Suresh Chandra Sharma & Ors.
V E R S U S
RESPONDENTS :
State of Rajasthan & Ors

INDEX

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. No. Particulars Page Nos.
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Reply to writ petition

2. Affidavit in support of reply to writ petition

3. Reply to the Stay Petition.

4. Affidavit in support of stay petition

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 5

(Dhanesh Saraswat)

Advocates