Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Lrs. Of Rajesh Vyas ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2025:RJ-JD:19146-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 779/2024
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan Technical Education Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Technical Education, Jodhpur.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Lrs. Of Rajesh Vyas, Through -
1/1. Smt. Sudha Vyas W/o Late Rajesh Vyas, Resident Of
Singh Pole Road, Navchokiya, Jodhpur.
1/2. Radhika Vyas D/o Late Rajesh Vyas, Resident Of Singh
Pole Road, Navchokiya, Jodhpur.
1/3. Aayushi Vyas D/o Late Rajesh Vyas, Resident Of Singh
Pole Road, Navchokiya, Jodhpur.
2. Seeta Ram Jalandhara S/o Shri Heera Ram Jalandhara,
Resident Of - 231, Kirshna Temple Street, Bhagat Ki
Kothi, Jodhpur.
3. Pokar Ram Malviya S/o Shri Kana Ram Malviya, Resident
Of Sirohi Presently Working As Head Of Department,
Government Of Polytechnic College, Sirohi.
4. All India Council For Technical Education (Aicte), Through
Its Secretary, Indira Gandhi Sport Complex, Indraprastha
Estate, New Delhi - 110 002.
..Performa Respondent
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for
Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aniket Tater
(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 09:54:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19146-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-779/2024]
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
21/04/2025
1. Heard.
2. Delay is condoned.
3. The submission made by the learned counsel for the State
that in view of provisions contained in clause 9(1)(c) of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales for Government
Polytechnic Colleges Teachers) Rules, 2001, the respondents were
not entitled to grant of revised pay scale by counting period of
services rendered by them in ad-hoc capacity.
4. The order of the learned Single Judge seems to place
reliance upon AICTE norms contained in clause 9 of circular dated
30th December, 1999 and the decision of learned Single Judge of
this Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar and Anr. Vs. State and
Ors. : SBCWP No.11932/2012 decided on 11.08.2014 as also
State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Jain
and Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.41/2015 decided on
13.07.2015.
5. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that, in fact,
earlier a learned Single Judge of this Court had rejected similar
claim vide order dated 05.08.2014 in the case of Narain
Manwani Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. : SBCWP
No.1845/2002.
6. The period of services rendered in temporary/contract or ad-
hoc/leave vacancy capacity has been dealt with by AICTE by
issuing a circular dated 30th December, 1999. Learned Single
[2025:RJ-JD:19146-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-779/2024]
Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid provision to hold
that where the conditions stipulated in clauses (a) and (d) of sub-
clause 9.1 of clause 9 of circular dated 30 th December, 1999 are
fulfilled, the period is liable to be treated for the purpose of grant
of benefits of higher pay scale upon completion of five years of
service. The State did not place any material nor advanced any
argument before the learned Single Judge that the respondents
were not fulfilling the conditions stipulated in sub-clause 9.1 of
clause 9 of circular of 1999.
7. Learned Single Judge has referred to Rule 9(c) which
provides for fixation of pay of Head of the Department. Rule 9(c)
of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales for
Government Polytechnic Colleges Teachers) Rules, 2001, provides
for fixation of pay of Head of the Department, Reader and
equivalent post who were selected strictly in accordance with the
rules and regulations applicable.
8. It is not in dispute that the respondents were duly selected
through process of regular selection. No reason was assigned by
the appellants in their reply as to why despite having been duly
selected, the respondents were deprived of regular appointment
for several years.
9. The provisions contained in the Rules which have been
referred to by the learned Single Judge, circular of the State
Government as also the guidelines of the AICTE, aim to ensure
fair treatment of various categories of employees and not to
deprive them benefit of revised pay scale for none of their fault
merely because for one reason or the other, their order of regular
appointment came to be issued belatedly despite they having
[2025:RJ-JD:19146-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-779/2024]
been duly selected by a regular process. If that be the spirit of the
policy under which the benefit of the services rendered in
ad-hoc/temporary/leave vacancy is extended, the view that the
benefit granted to respondents by the learned Single Judge
proceeds on detailed consideration and based on various
judgments of this Court. Reliance on the decision in the case of
Narain Manwani (supra) is not well founded as the aforesaid
decision has not considered but has accepted the stand taken by
the respondents without assigning any reason.
10. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the
order and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
11. Stay application and all other pending applications stand
disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
23-ajayS/abhishek-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
