STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus SURENDRA MOHNOT & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 30-06-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 6 S.C.R. 191 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
v. 
SURENDRA MOHNOT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5860-61 of 2014) 
JUNE 30, 2014 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service law - Grant of selection grade - Claim of -
Regularisation of employees appointed on ad hoc basis as 
Lower Division Clerks for a fixed tenure - Grant of increments 
C 
to the said employees for the period before their regularization 
in service in *Chandra Shekhar's case - Issuance of circular 
by State Government pertaining to prescription of Selection 
Grades for employees that service would be counted from the 
date the employee had regularly been appointed in the 
existing cadre/service held in **Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's 
case -
Thereafter, representation of employee for grant of 
selection grade on completion of 18 years on the ground that 
they had been granted first selection pay scale from the date 
D 
F 
of their initial appointment - Rejection of representation - Writ 
E 
petition seeking grant of selection grade from the date of their 
initial appointment - Submission of the State Government 
that the matter was covered by Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's 
case and not by Chandra Shekhar's case -
Writ petition 
allowed in view of the consent order that matter covered by 
Chandra Shekhar's case - Dismissal of review application as 
a/so appeal thereagainst -
On appeal, held: Chandra 
Shekhar's case pertains to grant of increments for the period 
orior to regularization - It has nothing to do with the grant of 
selection gradf;) -
Law enunciated in Jagdish Narain 
Chaturvedi's case that the period for grant of selection grade 
G 
' as to be reckoned from the date of regularization in service 
· nd not prior to that, is binding -
Employees prior to 
egu/arization_ were not members of service or· a part of the 
191 
H 
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A cadre - They are only entitled to the benefit of selection grade 
from the date of regularization -
Since there can be no 
estoppel against law, consent given in a court that a 
controversy is covered by a judgment which has no 
applicability, there cannot be an estoppel from raising the 
B point that the same was erroneously cited - Writ court while 
rejecting the app(ication for review only noticed that the order 
was passed on agreement - Single Judge did not think it 
appropriate to appreciate the stand of the State and passed 
an absolutely laconic order - Thus, writ court not justified in 
C rejecting the application for review - Estoppel - Review -
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Ord. 47. 
D 
Advocates - Role of - Explained - As regards, the 
counsel for the State, he has a higher responsibility - He has 
a special duty towards the court in rendering assistance. 
Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 were appointed on ad hoc 
basis as Lower Division Clerks for a fixed tenure and were 
subsequently regularized. State of Rajasthan issued a 
circular pertaining to prescription of Selection Grades for 
E employees in Class IV, Ministerial and subordinate 
services and those holding isolated posts and fixation of 
pay in Selection Grades. The respondents along with 
others sought increments for the period before their 
regularization in service but the State Government 
refused for the same. The respondents and others filed 
F writ petitions but the Single Judge dismissed the same. 
The Division Bench in *Chandra Shekhar v. State of 
Rajasthan and others, allowed the appeals, holding that 
the respondents were entitled to grant of increments on 
the basis of contract of service. This Court upheld the 
G same in CA No. 3441 of 1998. Thereafter, the State 
Government issued a circular on 17.4.2002 granting 
annual grade increments. In 2009, the Government of 
Rajasthan issued a clarificatory circular prescribing the 
method for grant of Selection Grades as well as the 
H 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SURENDRA MOHNOT 
193 
manner of computation of 9, 18 and 27 years, referring 
to the earlier circular and the Government Order that for 
the purpose of grant of selection grade service was to be 
counted from the date the employee had regularly been 
appointed in the existing cadre/service. In 2009 circular 
the claim of the employees for grant of selection grade 
from the date of ad hoc appointment, action of the State 
Government and the decision in **Jagdish Narain 
Chaturvedi's case was mentioned. Thereafter, certain 
directions were issued to the competent authorities that 
employees may be gran

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.