Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meena Wadhwani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:48552) on 11 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:48552]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12993/2021
Meena Wadhwani D/o Late Shri Jhangi Ram Wadhwani, Aged
About 59 Years, Resident Of House No. 328, Rathkhana Colony,
Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Sandu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NK Mehta, Dy.G.C.
Mr. Bhupesh Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 11/11/2025
1. The matter comes upon an application seeking early hearing of the case.
2. For the reasons and grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
3. In view of the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in consideration the trivial nature of the issue involved, the matter has been heard today itself.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the writ petition as well as the reply thereto, along with the documents annexed with the pleadings.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 09:58:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48552] (2 of 9) [CW-12993/2021]
5. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner, after due selection, was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III vide order dated 24.10.1988 issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner, and was posted at Government Primary School, Meghasar, District Bikaner. Documents showing her name in the selection list have been annexed with the writ petition, and the said fact remains uncontroverted.
5.1 The petitioner joined her duties on 05.11.1988 under the command and control of the respondent department and, ever since, has been discharging her duties with due diligence and sincerity. It is further pleaded that throughout her service tenure, no complaint whatsoever was made regarding her work efficiency or conduct.
5.2 Vide order dated 07.11.1997 (Annexure-3), issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner, upon successful completion of the probation period, the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from her initial date of appointment, i.e., 05.11.1988. A perusal of Annexure-3 reveals the said fact, which remained neither disputed nor denied during the course of arguments.
6. The cause of action for the present petition arises from the denial of selection grade benefits to the petitioner on completion of 9, 18, and 27 years of service. The State Government, with a view to remove the financial stagnation of its employees, issued a circular dated 25.01.1992 directing that benefits of selection grades upon completion of 9, 18, and 27 years of service be (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 09:58:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48552] (3 of 9) [CW-12993/2021] extended to members of subordinate and Class IV services and other similarly placed categories. It was further resolved therein that where there exists no promotional post, the selection scale shall be granted in the next higher pay scale corresponding to the next promotional post.
7. The grievance of the petitioner is that though her services were regularized with effect from 05.11.1988, she became entitled to the first and second selection grades in the years 1997 and 2006 respectively. However, despite satisfactory service, the respondents failed to grant such benefits from the date of her initial appointment, and no cogent reason was ever assigned for such denial. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3733/2009 (Meena Wadhwani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which came to be allowed vide order dated 10.05.2013 with certain directions. For ready referece, the order dated 10.05.2013 is reproduced herein below:-
1. These writ petitions involving common questions of facts and law, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners holding the post of Teacher in the schools run by various Panchayat Samitees of Bikaner district, are seeking directions to the respondents to release the benefits of Second Selection Grade to them, in terms of Government order dated 25.1.92 on completion of 18 years of service.
3. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher vide different orders issued by Vikas Adhikari of Panchayat Samiti concerned In the pay scale of Rs.880-1600 on temporary basis for a period of six months or till the (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 09:58:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48552] (4 of 9) [CW-12993/2021] regularly selected candidates are made available. The petitioners were appointed as aforesaid after due selection by Administrative Committee on their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Bikaner. The petitioners were confirmed on the post of Teacher vide different orders allegedly on the completion of the probation period from the date of their initial appointment pursuant to the decision taken by the Administrative Committee in its meeting. The details of dates of initial appointment, the date of confirmation as mentioned in the confirmation order of the respective petitioners are summarised thus:
Sr. No. Name of the Date of of Date of order Pancha petitioner Initial of yat appointment confirmation Samiti
1. Jetha Ram 27.12.90 - Loonkar Daawa ansar
2. Om Prakash 29.11.88 16.11.95 Bikaner Mehgwal
3. Smt. Sushila 30.6.80 26.11.88 Bikaner Rajput
4. Shokat Ali 15.3.88 25.3.92 Bikaner
5. Meena 29.10.88 7.11.97 Bikaner Vadhwani
6. Kalu Ram 14.8.86 25.03.92 Bikaner Pannu
7. Bhanwar Lal 9.9.88 2.12.02 Nokha Prajapat
8. Puna Ram 9.9.88 -- Nokha Jakhar
9. Smt. Neelam 8.4.88 29.5.97 Nokha Gupta
10. Mohan Lal 24.11.88 29.5.97 Nokha Raigar
11. Ummed 9.9.88 16.1.01 Nokha Kumar
4. On completion of 9 years of satisfactory service, the petitioners were granted First Selection Grade in terms o' Government order dated 25.1.92. The petitioners become eligible for grant of Second Selection Grade on completion of 18 years of satisfactory service, however, the (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 09:58:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48552] (5 of 9) [CW-12993/2021] respondents did not consider their candidature in terms of the said Government order. Hence, these petitions.
5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that the Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan has issued an order dated 29.6.09 clarifying that the period of service rendered before regular appointment to the post in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules shall not be counted for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade in terms of Government order dated 25.1.92 and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted Second Selection Grade inasmuch as, they have not completed 18 years of service from the date of their regular appointment. It is submitted that the controversy involved in the Instant petitions stands covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (Civil Appeal No.3620/09) and other connected SLPs preferred by the State Government against a Larger Bench decision of this court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been confirmed on the post of Teacher from the date of their initial appointment, they have to be treated regular employee from the date of their initial appointment and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case (supra) is not applicable on the facts of the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the date of Initial appointment of the petitioners and the date of confirmation of their services being not different, for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade in terms of the Government order dated: 25.1.92, their entire period of service has to be counted. Learned counsel submitted that taking the date of regular appointment of the petitioners to be their initial date of appointment, the respondents have already granted First Selection Grade to the petitioners and therefore, at this stage, they cannot deny the Second Selection Grade to the (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 09:58:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48552] (6 of 9) [CW-12993/2021] petitioners on the premise that their services prior to the date of confirmation order, shall not be counted.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the writ petitions as aforesaid, submitted that the confirmation of the petitioners services was preceded by temporary service on ad hoc basis and therefore, their services prior to passing of the confirmation order cannot be counted for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case (supra), learned counsel submitted that for the purpose of grant of Selection Scale of pay while reckoning the required length of service, the period of ad hoc service has to be excluded. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondents' decision not to grant Second Selection Grade to the petitioners cannot be faulted with inasmuch as, the period of service rendered by the petitioners before regular appointment to the post, in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules, shall not be counted for grant of Selection Grade.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case (supra).
9. In view of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court's decision in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case (supra) and other earlier decisions, there remains no quarrel with the preposition that for the purpose of grant of Selection Grade, the services rendered by an employee on ad hoc basis before regular appointment to the post in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules, has to be excluded, while reckoning the required length of service. But, then, in the instant cases, indisputably, the petitioners have been confirmed on the post of Teacher pursuant to the decision of the competent authority from the date of their initial appointment. It is not in dispute that for all intent and purposes the petitioners have been treated to be regular (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 09:58:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48552] (7 of 9) [CW-12993/2021] employees from the date of their initial appointment and for this reason, on completion of 9 years of service, they have already been granted First Selection Grade in terms of Government order dated 25.1.92. Once, the respondents have confirmed the services of the, petitioners from the date of their initial appointment, the same has to be treated to be the date of their regular appointment for reckoning the required length of service for the purpose of grant of Selection Grades in terms of the Government order dated 25.1.92. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi's case (supra) and the Government order dated 29.6.09 issued pursuant thereto, cannot be applied to the facts of the present cases. The petitioners are entitled for consideration of their candidature for grant of Second Selection Grade on completion of 18 years of service while reckoning the required length of service from the date of their confirmation i.e. the date of initial appointment.
10. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners' candidature for grant of Second Selection Grade in terms of Government order dated 25.1.92 while reckoning the required length of service from the date of their Initial appointment, which has been taken to be the date of their confirmation in service. The entire exercise pursuant to this order shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs."
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 10.05.2013, the respondents were under a legal obligation to comply with the order in its true letter and spirit. However, the same having not been done, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Petition No. 222/2014 (Meena Wadhwani Vs. Srimath Pandey & Ors.).
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 09:58:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48552] (8 of 9) [CW-12993/2021] During pendency of the contempt proceedings, the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Bikaner, issued an order dated 01.08.2015 granting the petitioner the benefits of first and second selection grades on completion of 9 and 18 years of service reckoned from the date of her initial appointment, i.e., from the years 1997 and 2006 respectively.
9. Upon availing the benefits of 9 and 18 years of satisfactory service, the petitioner became entitled to the third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service in the year 2015. Accordingly, the Principal, Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Laxminath Ghati, Bikaner, forwarded her case to the respondent No.3 for grant of the said benefit. However, the recommendation was declined on the sole ground that the earlier judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench did not specifically mention the third selection grade, and therefore, the same could not be extended. A perusal of Annexures-4 and 5 reveals that the only reason for denial was the absence of an express reference to the third selection grade in the judgment referred supra.
10. As a matter of fact, once the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 05.11.1988, and such date has already been taken into account by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court for computing her service tenure for the purpose of granting 9 and 18 years benefits, there remains no legal impediment for extending the third selection grade on completion of 27 years of continuous, satisfactory service. The petitioner cannot be compelled to approach this Court for every phase of benefit which (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 09:58:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48552] (9 of 9) [CW-12993/2021] naturally flows from the same factual matrix. The only ground available to the respondents for denial could have been unsatisfactory performance during service tenure, which is admittedly not the case herein. The action of the respondent department, therefore, stands in clear breach of the principles of law, justice, and fair play, and reflects a highly pedantic and mechanical approach, which cannot be countenanced by this Court.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned letter dated 03.07.2017 issued by respondent No.3 and the letter dated 02.05.2018 issued by the Principal, Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Laxminath Ghati, Bikaner, are quashed and set aside.
12. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Meena Wadhwani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3733/2009) decided on 10.05.2013 along with bunch of similar writ petitions and grant to the petitioner the benefit of third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service counting from the date of her initial appointment, i.e., 05.11.1988, together with all consequential benefits.
(FARJAND ALI),J 35-divya/-
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 05:04:57 PM) (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 09:58:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)