RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR THROUGH REGISTRAR versus BABU LAL ARORA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 12-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR THROUGH REGISTRAR A 
v. 
BABU LAL ARORA 
DECEMBER 12, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Promotion-Conditions to be fulfilled-Held : Promotions take place 
according to conditions of employment and not on any general principle C 
of justice and fair play. 
Promotion-.Jndicia of-Promotion to a higher post implies addi-
tional responsibility attached to the post and higher emoluments. 
The respondent was appointed as a Lower Division clerk in the D 
appellant's establishment and was promoted to. the post of Upper 
Division Clerk. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted to the post 
of Court Fee Examiner/Stamp Reporter and received a further 
promotion to the post of Bench Reader. Both these posts carried the 
same pay scales. 
The State Government issued a circular, which prescribed selec-
. tion grade pay for employees in the Ministerial and Subordinate 
Services. The respondent made a representation for getting the benefit 
E 
of 3rd selection grade in his pay scale. The appellant rejected the 
representation on the ground that the benefit of the circular could not F 
be extended to the respondent as he had already earned three promo-
tions in his existing cadre. 
Being aggrieved the respondent filed a writ petition before the 
High Court. The Division Bench allowed the petition based on doctrine G 
of justice and fair play. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The employees who are in service are governed by the 
conditions of employment and their promotions also take place accord- H. 
747 
,, 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A ingly and not on any general ·principle of justice and fair play. 
Discrimination, if any, will arise only amongst equals and not between 
those who are in different cadres. (750-E~F-] 
2. One of the important indicia to find out whether an employee 
B holds a higher post on promotion is whether such post carries higher 
emoluments. Hence when the respondent was appointed as Bench 
Reader, whether it was really a promotion -0r posting in another 
equivalent post should have been examined. That aspect of the mater 
has not been examined by the High Court by reference to the nature 
of duties performed with additional responsibility attached to that post 
C or any higher emoluments were paM to him. Unless that aspect of the 
matter is examined, the High Court could not have arrived at the 
conclusion whether the respondent had obtained. three promotions as 
envisaged in the circular. In the absence of this exercise, the Division 
Bench could not have merely decided the matter on the doctrine of 
D justice and fair play. (751-A-D] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4468 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.5.98 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 860 of 1997. 
Aruneshwar Gu9ta for the Appellant. 
Pallav Shishodia, Hemant Sharma, Mrs. Shalini Shishodia and A.P. 
F Medh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. : The respondent was appointed as a Lower 
Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1680 in 1960 in the appellant's 
G establishment under the provisions of the Rules framed in 1953. He was 
promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 by 
an order made on 12.11.1973. He passed the qualifying test for promotion 
to the post of Court Fee Examiner/Stamp Reporter in the pay scale of 
Rs. 1400-2600. He was promoted to the post of Court Fee Examiner/Stamp 
H Reporter by an order made on 7 .4.1984. Subsequently he was promoted 
t 
·'"'-
'~ 
) .... 
RAJASTHANHIGH COURT v. B.L. ARORA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 749 
to the post of Bench Reader in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 by an order A 
made on 28.10.1989. 
The,Government of Rajasthan issued a circular on 25 .1.1992, which 
prescribed selection grade for employees in Class IV, Ministerial and 
Subordinate Services for fixation of pay in Selection Grades. 
The B 
respondent made a representation for getting the benefit of 3rd selection 
grade in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200. On 12.5.1994, the representation 
of the respondent was rejected by the Registrar of the appellant's estab-
lishment by an order made on 25. 7 .1994. The respondent filed a writ 
petition before the High Court for getting the benefit of the circular dated 
25.1.1992 on the grounds that certain others who had joined the service C 
as Upper Division Clerks and were junior to him were
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.