In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled in favor of a government lecturer who was denied the grant of a selection scale solely because he had failed to affix his signature on the application form, despite having correctly filled in all other details. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, in his order, emphasized that the absence of a signature on the application form should not be a ground to deny the benefit of the selection scale, provided the details filled in the application are accurate and the applicant is otherwise eligible.
The petitioner, at the time of his superannuation, was serving as a Junior Agriculture Teacher in the state's education department. Prior to his retirement, he underwent disciplinary proceedings, which culminated in a punishment order dated 18.05.2022, resulting in a 10% deduction in his pension for a period of ten years. Despite this, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of a selection scale. However, his application for the same was rejected solely on the grounds that he had not signed the application form.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the application form was duly filled with accurate details and was submitted within the stipulated time frame. Furthermore, the competent authority had forwarded the application with a recommendation for granting the selection scale. The only lapse was the absence of the petitioner's signature, which was an inadvertent oversight.
On the other hand, the state contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the selection scale due to the disciplinary proceedings and the resultant punishment. They argued that the grant of the selection scale was contingent upon the completion of all formalities, including the signing of the application form.
Justice Mathur, after considering the arguments from both sides, observed that the petitioner had fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for the grant of the selection scale. The only issue was the absence of his signature on the application form. The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted the form with accurate details, and the competent authority had recommended the grant of the selection scale. In light of these facts, the Court held that the absence of a signature should not be a reason to deny the petitioner the benefit he was entitled to.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the state's argument regarding the disciplinary proceedings. Justice Mathur opined that the punishment imposed on the petitioner could not be a ground to deny the selection scale when it became due, as the disciplinary proceedings were not related to the grant of the selection scale. The Court emphasized that the grant of the selection scale was a matter of entitlement based on the petitioner's service record and not contingent upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
In conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court directed the state to grant the selection scale to the petitioner, acknowledging that the denial based on the absence of a signature was unjustified. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of fairness and justice in administrative decisions, ensuring that employees are not deprived of their rightful benefits due to procedural lapses that do not affect their eligibility.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.