Rajasthan High Court
Ramavatar Singh Kashniya S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 December, 2021
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17834/2019
Ramavatar Singh Kashniya S/o Shri Udaram, Aged About 61 Years,R/o
Village Deswsar, Post Bagar, District Jhujhunu Presently Retired From
The Post Of Asst. Agriculture Officer From Office Of Assistant Director
Agriculture (Extension), Jhujhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner Agriculture, Agriculture Commissionrate,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Agriculture (Administration), Pant Krishi
Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Assistant Director, Agriculture (Extension), Jhujhunu.
5. The Director Of Directorate Of Pension And Pensioner's Welfare
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
10/12/2021
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
as Agricultural Supervisor on 06.02.1979 and was suspended from
service vide order dated 16.10.2006. After his acquittal in criminal
case vide order dated 26.09.2017, he was reinstated while
granting him all the consequential benefits too.
Before his suspension, the petitioner, vide letter dated
06.02.2006, exercised his option in terms of Rule 10 of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules Rules, 2008
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2008") pertaining to the
selection of the existing pay scale. In terms of the option
(2 of 3) [CW-17834/2019]
exercised by the petitioner, Department, vide order dated
21.03.2018, directed for fixation of selection grade of the
petitioner.
Vide application dated 16.04.2018, the petitioner requested
the Department to revise his option which he had given earlier
vide letter dated 06.02.2006.
The said application of the petitioner was rejected vide order
dated 26.07.2018 on the premise that in terms of Rule 11(5) of
the Rules of 2008, the option once exercised cannot be revised.
Against the same the petitioner preferred the present petition. The
petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench
of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20400/2012; Union of
India Vs. Jai Kishan Nagar & Ors.
A perusal of the judgment shows that in that matter there
was a circular of the Government vide which employees were
permitted to revise their initial option upto the date permissible, if
the option was more beneficial to them and therefore this Court
interferred in the matter.
In the present matter, this Court does not find any ground
for interference as the provision is clear and there is no law
pointed out by counsel which shows that the right of exercising
the option is revisable.
However, counsel seeks liberty to move a representation to
the Department to raise his grievances. If the petitioner files a
representation, the same may be considered sympathetically by
the Department and the decision thereupon be made within a
period of one month from the date of filing of the representation.
(3 of 3) [CW-17834/2019]
In view of the above observations, present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
ashu /6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
