RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERSversusSADHU SINGH

1130            SUPREME COURT
                          [2022]REPORTS
                                 1 S.C.R. 1130               [2022] 1 S.C.R.


 A      RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION &
                           OTHERS
                                         v.
                                 SADHU SINGH
 B                        (Civil Appeal No.1058 of 2022)
                              FERBRUARY 04, 2022
               [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                         SURYA KANT, JJ.]
              Service Law – Selection Grade – Grant of – Respondent-
 C
       conductor was compulsorily retired from service in 2003 – He
       instituted suit in 2010 seeking benefit of first, second and third
       Selection Grades on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service –
       Trial court partially decreed the suit, directing that respondent shall
       be entitled to the grant of Selection Grade from 25 January 1992
 D     on the completion of 9 years of service & the second Selection
       Grade pay scale from 7 January 2002 on the completion of 18
       years of service –First Appellate Court as well as the High Court
       upheld the judgment of trial court – Held: The respondent waited
       for seven long years after his retirement to pursue a claim for grant
       of Selection Grade – It was clearly beyond the residuary period of
 E
       limitation of three years provided in Art. 137 of the Schedule to the
       Limitation Act – That apart, grant of selection grade was not a
       matter of right and was subject to terms and conditions which were
       stipulated – In terms of Clause 7 of the scheme of Selection Grade
       only those employees whose service record was satisfactory were to
 F     be granted Selection Grade – Respondent failed to fulfill the terms
       and conditions as it did not fulfill the requirements of a clean record
       of service – During his service tenure, respondent was subjected to
       several disciplinary proceedings and as many as 19 charge-sheets
       were issued against him which resulted in penalties of varying nature
       – Thus, both on the question of limitation as well as on merits,
 G
       respondent was not entitled to relief – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article
       137 of the Schedule .
             State of Rajasthan and Others v Shankar Lal Parmar
             (2011) 14 SCC 235: [2011] 11 SCR 762 – referred to.
 H
                                        1130
    RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION &                             1131
                OTHERS v. SADHU SINGH

                        Case Law Reference                                   A
[2011] 11 SCR 762                 referred to               Para 8
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1058 of
2022.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2018 of the High Court        B
of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Second Appeal
No.282 of 2017.
        Ms. Charu Mathur, Adv. for the Appellants.
        Ms. Nidhi, Sarthak Arora, Advs. for the Respondent.                  C
        The following Order of the Court was passed:
                                ORDER
        1. Leave granted.
                                                                             D
      2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the
Rajasthan High Court at the Jaipur Bench in SB Civil Second Appeal
No 282 of 2017.
      3. The respondent was appointed on the post of Conductor by the
Regional Manager of the appellant at Bikaner. On 25 January 1992, the
                                                                             E
Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan issued an Office
Order in regard to the grant of the benefit of the first, second and third
Selection Grades to employees on completing 9, 18 and 27 years of
service respectively. The Office Order of 25 January 1992 was made
applicable to the appellant. On 4 January 2003, the respondent was
compulsorily retired from service. During the tenure of his service, the     F
respondent was served with as many as 19 charge-sheets in pursuance
of which he was subject to departmental penalties.
       4. The respondent instituted a suit in 2010, nearly seven years
after his compulsory retirement seeking the benefit of Selection Grade
on the completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The Additional Civil     G
Judge (Junior Division) decreed the suit partially on 26 March 2012 by
directing that the respondent shall be entitled to the grant of Selection
Grade from 25 January 1992 on the completion of 9 years of service and
the second Selection Grade pay scale from 7 January 2002 on the
completion of 18 years of service. The appeal against the judgment of
                                                                             H
1132             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


 A     the trial Judge was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 21 January
       2017, and eventually, the High Court by its judgment dated 7 August
       2018 dismissed the Second Appeal.
              5. During the course of the hearing, two submissions have been
       urged by Dr Charu Mathur, learned counsel who appears on behalf of
 B     the appellant. Firstly, it has been submitted that the suit which was
       instituted in 2010, nearly 7 years after the respondent had retired was
       barred by limitation. Secondly, it has been submitted that in order to avail
       of the benefit of the Selection Grade, the employee was required to
       have a clean record of service. In the present case, it has been stated
       that the respondent was served with as many as 19 charge-sheets and
 C     penalties. A tabulated statement of the disciplinary penalties imposed on
       the respondent has been placed on the record and is extracted below:



 D




 E




 F




 G




 H
    RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION &                             1133
                OTHERS v. SADHU SINGH

                                                                             A




                                                                             B




                                                                             C




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G



       6. On the other hand, Ms Nidhi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent submits that the trial Judge correctly held that
the suit was instituted in 2010 after the representation of the respondent   H
1134               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 1 S.C.R.


 A     was rejected and hence was within limitation. Moreover, it was sought
       to be urged that the order of compulsory retirement is not a penalty.
       Finally, learned counsel submitted that the department did not produce
       adequate evidence to establish all the charge-sheets and the disciplinary
       penalties against the respondent.
 B            7. We shall at the outset deal with the issue of limitation. The
       respondent was retired compulsorily from service on 4 January 2003.
       Original Civil Suit No 41 of 2010 was instituted in 2010. The trial Judge
       as well as the first appellate court were of the view that the suit was not
       barred by limitation since the representation of the respondent for the
       grant of the three Selection Grades was rejected on 18 January 2010.
 C     The first appellate court, while concurring with the trial Judge also noted
       that the “final request” made by the respondent-plaintiff on 18 January
       2010 was rejected and hence the suit was within limitation.
              8. The respondent waited for seven long years after his retirement
       to pursue a claim for the grant of Selection Grade. This was clearly
 D     beyond the residuary period of limitation of three years provided in Article
       137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963. That apart, in the decision
       of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Others vs Shankar Lal
       Parmar1, the Court has considered the ambit of the scheme for Selection
       Grade. This Court has held thus:
 E              “6. Another important and relevant clause in the said order for
                our perusal is Clause 7, which is also reproduced hereinbelow:
                       “7. Selection Grades in terms of this order shall be granted
                       only to those employees whose record of service is
                       satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible
 F                     for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered
                       to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the Selection
                       Grade.”
                7. Clause 7 makes it clear that only those employees would be
                entitled for grant of Selection Grades, whose service record has
 G              been satisfactory and are otherwise eligible for promotion on the
                basis of seniority but have not been able to get the same as there
                might not be any channel of promotion or for want of sanctioned
                posts in the cadre.”

       1
 H         (2011) 14 SCC 235
    RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION &                               1135
                OTHERS v. SADHU SINGH

      9. The Court held that in terms of Clause 7, only those employees        A
whose service record has been satisfactory would be entitled to be granted
Selection Grade. In this context, the Court held:
      “17. Clause 7 further makes it clear that only those/such
      employees would be entitled to be granted Selection Grade whose
      service record has been satisfactory. This implicitly shows that         B
      the person who has an untainted, unblemished, clean and unpolluted
      record in service would be treated on a higher pedestal than those
      who have either tainted, blemished, unclean or polluted record.
      This obviously appears to be a reasonable classification and is
      under the ambit and touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.
      There is neither any ambiguity nor any doubt in the same.”               C

       10. On the touchstone of the above principles, it is evident that
the respondent had been subjected to several disciplinary proceedings
and as many as 19 charge-sheets were issued against him which resulted
in penalties of a varying nature. The service record of the respondent
cannot be regarded as untainted or clean.                                      D

        11. Ms Nidhi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
some of the penalties which were imposed on the respondent were
without cumulative effect. The consequence of the withholding of
increments without cumulative effect is that after the period prescribed,
the respondent would be entitled to restoration of the original pay scale      E
or the original pay. However, this does not obviate the position that the
imposition of the penalty itself indicates that the service record of the
employee was not satisfactory. Another submission which has been urged
is that the penalties were of a minor nature. Assuming that to be so, it is
evident that for the grant of Selection Grade, the respondent did not fulfil   F
the requirements of a clean record of service. The grant of the Selection
Grade is not a matter of right and was subject to the terms and conditions
which were stipulated. The respondent failed to fulfill these terms and
conditions.
       12. For the above reasons, we are of the view that both on the          G
question of limitation as well as on merits, the respondent was not entitled
to the relief which was sought. The suit instituted by the respondent
seven years after he had demitted office was barred by limitation. That
apart, the respondent failed to meet the basic requirements for the
Selection Grade.
                                                                               H
1136              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 1 S.C.R.


 A           13. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
       judgment and order of the High Court dated 7 August 2018. In
       consequence, the suit instituted by the respondent shall stand dismissed.
              14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

 B     Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                          Appeal allowed.
       (Assisted by : Neha Sharma, LCRA)




 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H