ORDER
Lakshmanan, CJ.
(1.) Heard Shri J.K. Singhi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.
(2). This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated I3.7.2000: passed by the learned Single Judge, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1697/1994.
(3). The brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 were appointed as Blasters in the office of the appellant on 4.12.1986, vide Annex. 1, in the pay scale of Rs. 490-840 and were confirmed as Blaster vide order dated 19.02.1990, vide Annex. 5. The respondents No. 1 and 2 raised a demand through their Union that the pay scale of Blasters, applicable in the Government Department, was Rs. 640-340. The appellant-Nigam filed a reply to the writ petition and submitted that since the respondents were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 490-840 and not in the pay scale, which was being given by the Ground Water Department and that the respondents had also accepted their pay scale of Rs. 490-840 and joined the post, they are not entitled for the grant of the pay scale as prayed by them. It was also submitted that the respondents were not having the requisite qualifications as prescribed by the Nigam,which were necessary in the Ground Water Department and, as such, they ate. not eligible for the pay scale applicable in the Ground Water Department. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, allowed the writ petition of the respondents No. 1 and 2 on the ground that the appellant had confirmed the respondents on the post in question and, therefore, they were eligible for pay scale applicable in the Ground Water Department. The learned Single Judge has also awarded pay scale from the date the respondents joined their service in the appellant Nigam, with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
(4). Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2000, passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant Nigam preferred the present Special Appeal.
(5). Mr. Singhi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that merely because the respondents No. 1 and 2 have been confirmed on the post of Blaster, it does not mean that they have been confirmed in the pay-scale which was applicable in the Ground Water Department and that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have been confirmed in the pay scale of Rs. 490-840 in which they were appointed and, therefore, only on this basis, the respondents No. 1 and 2 were not entitled for the pay scale which is applicable to the persons working in the Ground Water Department of the Stale Government. It has further been argued that the learned Single Judge should not have granted the pay scale of Rs. 490-840 in spite of the fact that the respondents No. 1 and 2 and not qualified and that simply because they have been confirmed by the appellants on the post of Blasters. It has further been urged by Mr. Singhi that the appellant Nigam is free to have its own pay scale and the service conditions of the employees in the Ground Water Department of the Slate of Rajasthan and the respondents are different and the appellant Nigam cannot be compelled to adopt the pay scale of the Government. It has also been submitted that as the Board of Directors did not accept the recommendations the pay scale applicable to the Ground Water Department cannot be awarded to the respondents and that the other Corporations also have their own policy for pay scale of their staff.
(6). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. A.K. Sharma submitted that the stand taken by the appellant Nigam is not correct and that the respondents were initially appointed on the post of Blasters by Rajasthan Water Resources Development Corporation (presently known as Rajasthan Jal Vikash Nigam Ltd.) way back in the year 1986 on the vacant post of Blaster for a period of six months subject to submission of various certificates including the Certificate from Controller of Explosives regarding their experiences in Blasting. It has also been submitted that both the respondents have furnished the requisite certificates and fulfilled all the conditions for eligibility for appointment on the post of Blaster in the appellant Nigam and that the appellant Nigam deemed it proper to grant pay scale of the post of Lower Division Clerk (Rs. 490-840) to the respondents and this fact has also been admitted by the appellant Nigam in its rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents to the stay application. It has also been stated that before making the appointment of the respondents on the post of Blaster, the Board of Directors of the appellant Nigam had sanctioned ten posts of Blasters in the pay scale of Rs. 640-1100 and this was the only pay scale for the said post. Our attention was also drawn to various Exhibits filed by the parties.
(7). It is not in dispute that the respondents have continuously worked on the post of Blaster in the appellant Nigam and discharged their duties and functions of the said post, with the result, that both the respondents came to be confirmed and were made permanent on the post of Blaster vide order dated 19.02.1990 (Annex. 5). There has been only one pay scale namely Rs. 640-1100 prescribed by the appellant Nigam for the post of Blasters as per the decision of the Board of Directors dated 7.4.1986. The respondents, in our opinion, will be entitled to get the said pay scale at least from the date of their confirmation i.e. 19.2.1990.
(8). Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents are entitled to the pay scale from the date of their initial appointment as ordered by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the denial of the pay scale from the date of their initial appointment is illegal.
(9). In fact, the respondents made representations only In the year 1990 and thereafter. It is stated that the Minister of Agriculture & Ground Water, who was an Ex-Officio Chairman of the appellant Nigam, recommended the grant of pay scale of Blaster to the persons working on the post of Blaster in the appellant Nigam in March, 1991. It is also staled that the pay scale of the Blasters prescribed by the State Government in the Ground Water Department also happens to be the same, namely Rs. 640-1100 as adopted by the appellant Nigam at the time of creation of the post of Blaster and, as such, the respondents shall be entitled to the same pay scale. It has also been pointed out by Shri Sharma, that the appellant Nigam had nowhere taken a decision to adopt the qualification prescribed by the State Government for Blaster at the time of creation of the post nor any such decision was notified to the respondents. The respondents filed writ petition in the year 1994, after having failed to get necessary relief from the appellant Nigam.
(10). We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge decided the matter on merits and has granted the pay scale to the respondents from their initial date of appointment i.e. 4.12.1986. In our opinion the interest of justice would be met, if we modify the order of the learned Single Judge by directing the appellant Nigam to give the pay scale of the post of Blasters to the respondents No. 1 and 2 as applicable in the Ground Water Department, from the date of their confirmation on the said post since the respondents themselves have made certain representations only in the year 1990 and thereafter. We, therefore, modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge only to the said effect. We also hold that since the appellant Nigam found the respondents fit and suitable for substantive and permanent as Blasters, their entitlement to the prescribed pay scale for the post of Blaster from the date of their confirmation cannot be denied to them as admittedly, they have worked as Blasters and not as Lower Division Clerks. It is also not in dispute that since the respondents have received the benefit of the pay scale of Lower Division Clerk including fixation in revised pay scale of the said post from time to time and they have been denied the benefits of the post of Blaster, to which they are legally entitled, in our opinion, it is expedient and in the interest of justice that the appellant Nigam should be directed to give this benefits to the respondents as modified by us in this judgment. The appeal is accordingly succeeds in part, as indicated above.
(11). Counsel for the appellant Mr. Singhi requests for three months time for paying the arrears from the date of confirmation till the respondents continued in service. It is stated by Shri Sharma, that the services of the respondents have been retrenched and it is open to them to question the correctness of the retrenchment order, if they so desire.
(12). The time for payment of the entire arrears shall be within fifteen days from today failing which the interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be paid from the date of confirmation till the date the respondents continued in service. The pay scale as revised from time to time at par with similar set of employees with all consequential benefits be given to the respondents.