[2025:RJ-JP:1501-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 569/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5778/2016 Ratiram Choyal S/o Late Shri Ramkumar, R/o 38, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The General Manager, Store and Purchase Department, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. V.K. Mathur Advocate with Mr. Rahul Ghiya Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment 09/01/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge fell in error in not extending the benefit flowing from office order dated 20.02.2013 by which pay scale was revised and amended as 9000-14400 with effect from 01.09.2006. He would submit that even though the appellant was not substantively holding the post of Private Secretary, even as Senior Personal Assistant, he was entitled to be given equality of treatment in the matter of revision of pay scale because the appellant was beneficiary of higher pay scale under the policy of grant of selection grade after completion of prescribed period of 27 years of service in lieu of promotion because the posts were not available. [2025:RJ-JP:1501-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-569/2024] 3. The benefit of revision of pay scale of the posts of Private Secretary vide office order dated 20.02.2013 was post linked and not pay scale linked. The policy decision was taken to revise the pay scale of the posts of Private Secretary which was a post higher than the post of Senior Personal Assistant. The claim of parity sought by the appellant is not based on any right either under any of the service rule or on any material to show that the principle on which earlier decision was taken to revise pay scale of the posts of Private Secretary was equally applicable in the case of Senior Personal Assistant. In the entire writ petition, there is no averment that the duties and functions of the post of Senior Personal Assistant are identical to that of Private Secretary. In fact, the post of Private Secretary is a promotional post. Even if it is accepted that the appellant was granted selection grade in the pay scale of 8000- 13500 which was equivalent to the pay scale of the post of Private Secretary, the fact remains that the appellant was not substantively appointed and working on the post of Private Secretary, but only on a lower post. 4. In substance, the policy decision of the respondents to revise pay scale linked with the posts of Private Secretary cannot be faulted with on the ground that that the revision of pay scale ought to be uniform irrespective of the post. 5. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. 6. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI-/19