IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. 

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1048/2002. 
R.K.Pareek Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.  

Date of order :: 14.07.2015. 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT SINGH 
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL 

Shri RN Mathur, Senior Counsel with 
Shri Deepash Kumar Sharma, counsel for the appellant. 
Shri Anurag Kalavatiya for 
Shri JM Saxena, AAG for respondent-State. 

Shri Akhil Simlote, counsel for the respondent No.2.

The following order of the Court was passed by Ajit Singh, J.

This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th October, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellants S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5041/2001.

2. Respondent No.2- State Pollution Control Board has been constituted under section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short the Act 1974). The Board is a body corporate and an Officer of the State Government from Finance department is one of its members.

3. The appellant was appointed on 04.04.1985 as Law Officer Gr.III in the Board. He was after few years promoted to Grade II on 10.04.1991 and confirmed on that post w.e.f. 30.3.1993.

4. On 30.11.1995, the Board in its meeting decided to upgrade the pay-scales of Law Officers w.e.f. 1.4.1996. The meeting was also attended by the Deputy Secretary, Finance of the State government. The Board however, desired that the justification for revision of pay scales along with work load of each Law Officer be also brought on record on the next meeting. And in the next meeting held on 9.8.1996, the Board in the presence of Deputy Secretary, Finance (expenditure department) of the State government having regard to the heavy work load and arduous duties of the Law Officers unanimously resolved to upgrade the pay scales of Law Officers w.e.f. 1.4.1996. In pursuant to this resolution, order dated 21.8.1996 upgrading the pay scales of Law Officers was issued and it was implemented too. In the result, the appellant who was being paid the scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- started receiving the revised pay scale of Rs. 2500-4250/-. He also received the arrears w.e.f. 1.4.1996.

5. Later, the State Government raised an objection regarding the revision of pay scale. And in reply, the Board vide letter dated 24th June, 1998 gave justification in detail for sanctioning the revised pay scale. But the State government vide order dated 1.9.2001 directed the Board to re-revise the pay scale of the Law Officers (at lower scale) w.e.f. 1.4.1996 and recover the excess amount paid to them. The Board, therefore, vide order dated 5.10.2001 reduced the revised pay scale from 2500-4250/- to 2000-3200/-, and also directed for the recovery of excess amount paid to them.

6. Aggrieved, the appellant rushed to this Court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5041/2001. After notice the State filed reply to the petition and defended its order directing the Board to re-revise pay scale of Law Officers. The learned Single Judge agreed with the State Government and held that pay scale revised by the Board in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 36 of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board employees Service Rules and Regulations, 1993 ( in short ' Rules and Regulations, 1993') was inconsistent with section 12(3A) of the Act 1974 and, therefore, it was illegal. Not only this, the learned Single Judge has also held that these rules and regulations were violative of section 12(3A). On these findings, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the appellants petition. It is in this background, the present appeal has been filed.

7. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that learned Single Judge committed an illegality in holding that rules and regulations, 1993 were inconsistent with section 12(3A) of the Act 1974. According to the learned Senior Counsel these rules and regulations have been brought into force only after approval of the State Government as mandated under section 12(3A) of the Act, 1974 and regulation 38 clearly confers power on the Board to fix the pay scale of a person appointed to a post in service. The learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. The sole question which calls for our consideration is whether under Rules and Regulations, 1993 the Board on its own is empowered to determine and sanction the pay scale of a person appointed to a post in service or can revise the pay scale only after obtaining approval from the State Government.

9. As already mentioned above, the Board is constituted under the Act 1974. Its sub-section (3A) of section 12 reads as under : -

12.Member-secretary and officers and other employees of Board.- (1)------------------------------------

(2)-------------------------------------

(3) ------------------------------------

(3A) The method of recruitment and the terms and conditions of service (including the scales of pay) of the officers (other than the member-secretary) and other employees of the Central Board or a State Board shall be such as may be determined by regulations made by the Central Board or, as the case may be, by the State Board:

Provided that no regulation made under this sub-section shall take effect unless, -

(a) in the case of a regulation made by the Central Board, it is approved by the Central Government ; and

(b) in the case of a regulation made by a State Board, it is approved by the State Government.

The above-quoted sub-section (3A) of section 12 of the Act, 1974 clearly empowers the Board to determine the method of recruitment and the terms and conditions of service including the scales of pay of the Officers by making regulations subject to condition that regulations must have approval of the State Government. Therefore, the Board in exercise of its power conferred by sub-section (3A) has made and brought into force the Rules and Regulations, 1993 after the previous approval of the State Government. Although it would have been more appropriate for the Board to nomenclature these rules and regulations only as regulations in consonance with the language used in sub-section (3A), it however, does not make any difference regarding the power of Board to determine and sanction the scale of pay. But we shall now, refer them as regulations.

10. Part VII of the regulations deals with the pay of the employees of Board. Regulations 36 and 38 falling in part VII are reproduced as under: -

"36. Scale of Pay: - The scale of monthly pay of a person appointed to a post in the service, shall be such as may be admissible under the Rules referred to in rule 38 or as may be sanctioned by the Government/Board from time to time.

38.Regulation of Pay, Leave, Allowances and other facilities etc. - Except as provided in these rules, the pay, allowances, leave and other facilities and conditions of service of the members of the service shall be decided by the Board from time to time."

11. A reading of the above-quoted regulation 36 leaves no iota of doubt that the scale of monthly pay of a person appointed to a post in the service shall be as such as may be admissible under the regulations referred to in regulation 38 or as may be sanctioned by the Board/Government from time to time. Regulation 38 provides that the pay, allowances, leave and other service facilities and conditions of service of the members of service shall be decided by the Board from time to time. Both these regulations which have been approved by the State Government do not contemplate taking of yet an another approval from the State Government before the Board implements its decision to pay new sanctioned revise scale to a person appointed to the post in service. This is because power to determine the scales of pay is vested with the Board under the delegatged legislation and the legislature in its wisdom did not think it proper to restrict this power by making it subject to approval of the State Government. This is also because an Officer from the Finance department of the State Government is one of the members of the Board and he represents the State Government on financial issues in meetings while determining the scale of pay. Also these regulations made under statutory powers laying down terms and conditions including the scales of pay of the service of employees like any other delegated legislation such as rules have the force of law. Clearly regulations 36 and 38 are neither inconsistent nor ultra vires to sub-section (3A) of section 12 as held by the learned Single Judge. The Board was, therefore, competent to determine and sanction the revised pay scale of its Law Officers including that of appellant and no further approval from the State was necessary. We are thus, of the considered view that the State Government had no authority to insist upon the Board to re-revise the pay scale of Law Officers to a lower scale and direct for the recovery of excess payment. We are informed that order of the Board regarding reduction of pay scale and recovery of excess payment could not be implemented because of the interim orders passed by this Court. For these reasons, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single and quash the order dated 5.10.2001 passed by the Board as well as the order dated 1.9.2001 passed by the State Government.

12. The appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.

(Anupinder Singh Grewal), J.           			   (Ajit Singh), J.   
N.Gandhi
6


Certificate- All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. 


Naval Kishore Gandhi 
P.A.cum judgment writer