Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dinesh Kumar Joshi vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4278 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4278 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Kumar Joshi vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. ... on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/014143]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17518/2022

Dinesh Kumar Joshi S/o Late Shri Trilok Chand Joshi, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Merta Road, Behind Khatriyon Ka Bangla, Hari Nagar, Jaitaran, District Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., New Power House Road, Jodhpur through the Secretary (Admn.)

2. The Superintendent Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Pali.

3. Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Merta Road, Jaitaran, District Pali.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Naresh Singh.
For Respondent(s)          :     Ms Sapna Vaishnav.



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                      Order

09/05/2023

      Heard.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following

relief:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the post of LDC with all consequential benefits from the date he was initially appointed as Helper-I i.e. (Annex.4) and in the alternate on the post of equal to Class-IV employee and on his completion of three years service, he may be appointed to the post of LDC with all consequential benefits as per resolution No.102.17 with all consequential benefits including seniority and further promotion".

[2023/RJJD/014143] (2 of 4) [CW-17518/2022]

Briefly the facts necessary to be narrated in the present case

are that father of the petitioner Late Shri Trilok Chand Joshi while

working on the post of Meter Reader in the respondent

department died on 01.09.2006. The petitioner was appointed on

the post of Helper Grade-I on compassionate ground under the

Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of

Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 vide order dated

05.12.2006. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted to the post of

Lineman Grade-II vide order dated 10.02.2021.

The precise grievance of the petitioner is that he should have

been appointed on the post of LDC instead of Helper Grade-I as he

was having the requisite qualification for the same and therefore,

the appointment granted to him on the post of Helper Grade-I was

not correct. He submits that by virtue of appointment on the post

of Helper Grade-I, prospectus of the petitioner of being appointed

to the post of LDC has come to an end. He also submits that other

similarly situated persons who were appointed on the post of

Class-IV employees are now being promoted to the post of LDC.

He, therefore, prays that initial appointment of the petitioner on

the post of Helper Grade-I may be converted to the post of LDC

and thereafter, the petitioner should be further promoted in

accordance with law.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also

gone through the relevant record of the case.

The petitioner's father who was working on the post of Meter

Reader died on 01.09.2006 and the petitioner applied for

appointment under the Rules of 1996. The respondent department

appointed the petitioner on the post of Helper Grade-I vide order

[2023/RJJD/014143] (3 of 4) [CW-17518/2022]

dated 05.12.2006. The petitioner enjoyed the fruits of

appointment on the post of Helper Grade-I till the year 2022 and

all of a sudden, he has assailed validity of the appointment

granted to him stating that since he was qualified to hold the post

of LDC, therefore, grant of appointment to the petitioner on the

post of Helper Grade-I was not correct.

In the opinion of this court the 'U' turn taken by the

petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law for the reason that if

a person like the petitioner who has accepted the appointment

granted to him by the department and has continued the same for

more than 16 years, it is not open for the petitioner to approach

this court and say that he should have been granted appointment

on the post of LDC instead of Helper Grade-I. This court is also of

the view that to challenge the appointment order issued on

05.12.2006 after a delay of about 17 years is unexplained,

therefore, entertaining this writ petition will be nothing but an

abuse of process of law. The examples cited by the petitioner are

wholly irrelevant for the simple reason that those persons qua

whom the petitioner is claiming parity were appointed as Class-IV

employees and as per their channel of promotion, they have been

promoted to the post of LDC. The petitioner will be considered for

promotional post only in the channel in which he is working and

the promotional posts which are provided under the rules.

The judgment dated 26.04.2023 rendered by this court at

Jaipur Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4176/1998 (Ashish

Arora V/s Rajasthan State Electricity Board) and other

connected matter is clearly distinguishable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

[2023/RJJD/014143] (4 of 4) [CW-17518/2022]

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner

that he was not in a position to refuse the appointment granted to

him by the respondents, is an afterthought for the simple reason

that if the petitioner has enjoyed the fruits of that appointment for

almost 17 years, at this point of time, the petitioner cannot be

permitted to say that he was wrongly appointed by the respondent

department on the post of Helper Grade-I. Even otherwise also, it

is a settled law that the petitioner cannot ask for a post of his

choice while getting appointment under the Rules of 1996. For the

grant of compassionate appointment, the choice of post cannot be

asked for and he can only claim to be considered as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh

& Others v/s Ramesh Kumar Sharma (1994) Supp. (3) SCC

Therefore, in view of the discussions made above, no relief

can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The writ petition

lacks merit, the same is hereby dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 20-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter