[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kailash Chandra Jain vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:50415]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5037/2018
1. Shyam Sunder Mathur S/o M.b. Mathur, G-107, Shastri
Nagar, Ram Mandir Gali Jodhpur.
2. Aditya Kumar Saxena S/o Gangaram Saxena, R/o 65, A-
92, Saraswati Nagar Basani Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Public Health And Engineering Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer Rural, Public Health And Engineering
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering
Department, District, Jodhpur.
4. The Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering
Department, District, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12134/2021
1. Kailash Chandra Jain S/o Shri Kanakmal Jain, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o 9, Akshayvilla, New Shanti Nagar,
Sbi Atm Wali Gali, Keshav Nagar, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Suneel Kumar Pareek S/o Late Shri Sua Lal Purohit,
Aged About 58 Years, R/o A-538-C, Panchsheel Nagar,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. Subhash Chand Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Gupta,
Aged About 56 Years, R/o 301, B-8, Venkateshwar
Complex, Central Spine Vidhyadhar Nagar, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan, Presently C/o Ajay Singh Rathore,
Near Karjali Complex, Pulls, Udaipur (Raj.).
4. Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Shri Basanti Lal Jain, Aged About
57 Years, R/o House No. 3, Krishna Colony, Chanda
Talkies Ke Samne, Newai, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/12/2025 at 08:56:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (2 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
5. Sanjay Agarwal S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Agarwal,
Aged About 55 Years, R/o 9, Bank Street, Shiv Bari
Road, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Water Resources, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Engineer, Department Of Water Resources,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3961/2020
Nirmal Lal Mathur S/o Shri Gehra Lal Mathur, Aged About 61
Years, R/o 185, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Near Pakija Chakki,
Chopasni Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Water Resources, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Engineer, Department Of Water Resources,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Water Resources,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divik Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mehali Mehta
Mr. Piyush Bhandari
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/12/2025 at 08:56:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (3 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 03/12/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON : 06/11/2025 & 04/11/2025
BY THE COURT :-
1. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5037/2018, this Court, while
reserving the matter for order on 06.11.2025, also directed
that the case be tagged along with the reserved files of S.B.
CWP Nos. 12134/2021 and 3961/2020, as the issues
involved therein are similar in nature. It is noted that the
said two matters were reserved for orders on 04.11.2025.
Grievance and Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
5037/2018 -
2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have
assailed the order dated 31.12.2003 (Annex.3) to the extent
it regularizes their services w.e.f. 02.07.2003, and seek a
direction to the respondents to regularize them from the
date of their initial entry in service with all consequential
benefits including proper pay fixation, seniority and
promotional benefits. The petitioners further pray for
quashing of the impugned order (Annex.3) denying them the
benefit of first selection grade from the date of completion of
9 years of service reckoned from their respective dates of
initial appointment on the post of Junior Engineer, and for
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (4 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
issuance of directions to grant such selection grades as and
when due, together with arrears and interest @ 12% per
annum from the date of accrual till actual payment.
3. The facts of the present writ petition, is that the petitioners
were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil)-Diploma
Holders on temporary ad-hoc basis for three months, or till
regularly selected candidates became available under the
Rajasthan Subordinate Technical (Public Health &
Engineering Department) Rules, 1967 (in short "the 1967
rules"), in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-
2600/-, vide orders placing them under the Chief Engineer,
District Circle, Jodhpur (Annexure-2). Although initially
appointed for three months, their services were extended
from time to time and they continued uninterruptedly on
vacant posts under the 1967 Rules, receiving annual grade
increments, thereby functioning in practice as regularly
appointed employees. The petitioners assert that they
performed duties sincerely and without complaint. A
Screening Committee was later constituted under Rule 24 of
the 1967 Rules for considering regularization of Junior
Engineers working on ad-hoc/temporary/urgent basis as on
31.03.1999, which held its meeting on 23.10.2003 and
recommended eligible cases; pursuant thereto, the Chief
Engineer (Rural), PHED, Jaipur issued an order dated
31.12.2003 regularizing petitioners' services as Junior
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (5 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
Engineer (Civil)-Diploma Holders w.e.f. 02.07.2003, where
their names appeared at Serial Nos. 13 and 21 (Annexure-
3).
4. The petitioners contended that, in view of settled law that
once appointment is made according to rules, benefits must
flow from the date of initial appointment, their regularization
ought to have been given effect from their original entry in
service in 1997, but they did not immediately approach the
Court since the issue was already sub judice in other
identical matters. Meanwhile, employees' associations had
raised grievances concerning stagnation; the State issued
notification dated 25.01.1992 providing selection grades on
completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, followed by
clarifications dated 21.10.1993 (Annexure-5), 19.05.1997
(Annexure-6) and 07.08.1998 (Annexure-7) specifying that
service for Junior Engineers was to be counted from the date
of first appointment. Reliance is also placed on the case of
Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt (SBCWP No. 8358/2009 & 4306/2011)
wherein the learned Single Judge held that once
regularization is granted, benefits must relate back to initial
entry in service; the said view was upheld by the Division
Bench in DBCSA Nos. 909/2011 & 927/2011 and further
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 33784-
33785/2011 dismissed on 20.07.2012. Another similar issue
concerning counting of ad-hoc service for promotion under
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (6 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
the Career Advancement Scheme was decided in Dr. Suresh
Chand Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan, where the Single
Bench judgment dated 14.09.1994 was affirmed in D.B. Civil
Special Appeal No. 1289/1997 and later upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 469/2007 vide
order dated 10.03.2011, holding exclusion of such service to
be unjustified.
5. Returning to the present case, the petitioners submit that
having completed 9 years of service from their respective
dates of initial appointment in 1997 (Annexure-2), and their
appointments having been made under the 1967 Rules, they
were entitled to first selection grade from the date of initial
appointment, but the respondents instead granted the
benefit from 02.07.2012 by taking regularization date
(02.07.2003) as the starting point, as per orders dated
28.08.2014 and 11.12.2014 (Annexure-8), resulting in
recurring financial loss and affecting seniority. Legal notice
was served but no reply was furnished (Annexure-9).
6. Feeling aggrieved by the regularization order dated
31.12.2003 granting effect only from 02.07.2003 and by the
grant of first selection grade from the date of regularization
instead of initial appointment, the petitioners have preferred
the present writ petition.
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (7 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
Grievance and Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 12134/2021 -
7. By way of filing this civil writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed that the Order dated 20.04.2021 (Annex.25) passed
by the Department of Finance be declared illegal and
quashed; that the subsequent orders dated 02.06.2021
(Annex.26) and 09.07.2021 (Annex.27) passed by
respondent No.3 also be declared illegal and set aside; that
the respondents be directed to grant the benefit of the
Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) to the petitioners
on completion of 30 years of regular service by duly
reckoning the service rendered on adhoc basis prior to
regular appointment in terms of the exception dated
21.10.1993 (Annex.04) inserted in Para-3 of the notification
dated 25.01.1992 (Annex.03), along with all consequential
benefits; and that the respondents further be directed to pay
interest @18% per annum for the delayed fixation of
selection scale/ACP and the arrears arising therefrom.
8. That the Petitioners entered into the services of the
respondent department in the year 1987 on the post of
Junior Engineer on an ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of
Rs.1160-2360, pursuant to their appointment orders; that
various orders came to be passed from time to time
regarding counting of their ad-hoc service for grant of
Selection Grade/ACP benefits; that an order dated
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (8 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
30.03.2021 was issued by the Secretary, Department of
Deputy Finance (Budget) stating inter alia that in pursuance
of the order dated 24.12.2020, the benefit of ACP to Junior
Engineers appointed on ad-hoc basis up to 28.02.1997 shall
be allowed by computing their ad-hoc services, however
actual financial benefit would be granted only from the date
of regularization and benefits for the ad-hoc period shall be
only notional (Annexure-24); that thereafter another order
dated 20.04.2021 was issued by the Deputy Secretary,
Department of Finance (Budget) withdrawing the earlier
orders dated 24.12.2020 (ID No.102005252) and
30.03.2021 (ID No.102101467) in view of the opinion of the
Advocate General and earlier decisions in the cases of
Jagdish Narayan Chaturvedi and Surendra Mohnot
(Annexure-25); that following issuance of the order dated
20.04.2021, the office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources,
Jaipur passed a consequential order dated 02.06.2021
withdrawing the earlier orders issued in compliance of orders
dated 24.12.2020 and 30.03.2021 (Annexure-26); that
subsequently another order dated 09.07.2021 was issued by
the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, whereby
the ACP/Selection Scale earlier granted to the petitioners
and other similarly situated employees by computing their
ad-hoc services was withdrawn (Annexure-27); and that the
petitioners, being aggrieved of the orders dated 20.04.2021
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (9 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
and 02.06.2021 and the denial of Selection Grade/ACP
benefits from the date of their initial appointment on the
post of Junior Engineer, have preferred the present petition.
Grievance and Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 3961/2020-
9. By way of filing this civil writ petition, the petitioner prays
that the Letter/Communication dated 03.09.2019 (Annex.13)
issued by respondent No.4, along with the decision/comment
of the Department of Finance whereby the benefit of ACP/3rd
ACP has been denied by excluding the period of adhoc
service rendered by the petitioner/JEns prior to their regular
appointment, may be declared illegal and consequently
quashed and set aside. The respondents may further be
directed to grant the benefit of ACP/3rd ACP to the petitioner
by duly reckoning the entire period of adhoc service
rendered before regular appointment, with all consequential
benefits. The respondents may also be directed to pay
interest @18% per annum for the delayed fixation of 3rd
ACP and consequential arrears.
10. The breif facts of the present case are that the
petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent department,
last served as Assistant Engineer at Canal Sub-division-
Superannuation III, Canal Division-I, Bisalpur Project,
District Tonk, and after retirement has settled at Jodhpur at
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (10 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
the address mentioned in the cause title; the petitioner
initially entered the services of the respondent department in
the year 1987 on the post of Junior Engineer on ad-hoc basis
in the pay scale of Rs. 1160-2360 pursuant to appointment
order dated 21.09.1987, and after rendering more than ten
years of uninterrupted service, his case was placed before
the Screening Committee constituted in 1998, which issued
order dated 14.05.1998 under Rule 6(9) of the Rules 1967,
regularizing his services w.e.f. 28.07.1997 and placing his
name at Sr. No. 58 in order of seniority according to date of
joining on ad-hoc basis; that in view of acute stagnation in
promotions in Class-IV/Ministerial/Subordinate Services, the
State Government introduced a scheme for grant of selection
scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service vide
order dated 25.01.1992, followed by an exception added on
21.10.1993 clarifying that selection grades for Junior
Engineers would be admissible on completion of 9, 18 and 27
years of continuous service on the post of Junior Engineer,
which was further clarified by the Finance Department vide
letter dated 19.05.1997 addressed to the Chief Engineer,
Irrigation Department, Jaipur, reiterating that service for
Junior Engineers shall be counted from the date of their first
appointment; that from a combined reading of the orders
dated 21.10.1993 and 19.05.1997 it becomes clear that
while Junior Engineers are entitled to counting of service
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (11 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
from their first appointment on the post, employees of other
services continue to be governed by Para 3 of the order
dated 25.01.1992; that the petitioner became eligible for
first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service
w.e.f. 03.10.1996 and for second selection grade on
completion of 18 years of service w.e.f. 03.10.2005, but the
selection grades were not granted, compelling him to file
Appeal No. 5/2017 before the Rajasthan Civil Services
Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur; that several similarly situated
employees also approached this Court, including in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 16252/2018 (Gopi Ram Marwal & Anr. v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein the Court on 23.10.2018
held that the controversy was covered by the earlier
judgment in Bhiya Ram Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan decided
on 14.02.2017, noting that the State's appeal had already
been dismissed on 04.07.2018, and accordingly extended
the same benefit to the petitioners; that meanwhile, the
State notified the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2008 introducing the Assured Career Progression
(ACP) Scheme in lieu of selection grades, providing for
financial up-gradation on completion of 10 years' continuous
service in the same grade pay, later amended on 06.10.2008
by substituting "10 years" with "9 years" and inserting sub-
rules clarifying eligibility for ACP in cases where selection
grades or promotions had been previously granted; that
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (12 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
thereafter, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department,
issued order dated 28.11.2018 deciding that in cases where
Junior Engineers appointed on ad-hoc basis between
01.09.1987 to 28.02.1997 had completed 9 years of ad-hoc
service before 17.02.1998, such ad-hoc service would be
countable for selection grade, followed by another order
dated 07.06.2019 granting the petitioner selection grades of
9 and 18 years w.e.f. 04.10.1996 and 04.10.2005
respectively; that the petitioner expected that in view of the
above orders and judgments, he would receive the benefits
of 9, 18 and 27 years' selection grades by counting his ad-
hoc service, but was then informed that the Finance
Department had taken a decision not to count ad-hoc service
for grant of 3rd ACP under the revised pay rules of 2008, as
ACP benefits were admissible only after regular appointment;
that the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department,
accordingly issued letter dated 03.09.2019 directing
amendment of cases where ACP had been granted by
counting ad-hoc service, enclosing Finance Department's
comment dated 02.09.2019 reiterating that ACP cannot be
granted by taking into account ad-hoc service prior to
regular appointment; that in consequence, the petitioner will
not be granted ACP/3rd ACP by counting his ad-hoc service,
which the petitioner alleges to be illegal, arbitrary, contrary
to earlier notifications and inconsistent with judgments
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (13 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
passed by this Court in favour of similarly situated Junior
Engineers; and that being aggrieved by the continued delay
and denial of selection grades and ACP benefits from the
date of his initial appointment, the petitioner has preferred
the present writ petition.
11. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and
gone through the materials available on record.
12. Upon consideration of the pleadings and submissions in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5037/2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 12134/2021 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3961/2020,
the following common question of law arise for adjudication:
Whether the period of service rendered by the petitioners as
Junior Engineers on ad-hoc/temporary basis prior to their
regular appointment is required to be counted as qualifying
service from the date of initial appointment for the purpose
of grant of Selection Grades (9, 18, 27 years) and ACP/3rd
ACP benefits, in view of the applicable Government circulars
and settled judicial precedents?
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in all three writ
petitions were initially appointed as Junior Engineers on ad-
hoc basis against sanctioned posts, under the respective
statutory service rules of the Engineering Subordinate
Services. Their appointments, though described as
temporary/ad-hoc, were made under the Rules, and their
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (14 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
services continued uninterruptedly for long periods. They
were granted annual grade increments and were subjected
to the same supervisory control and responsibilities as
regularly appointed JEs.
14. The Government Order dated 25.01.1992 introduced
the scheme of Selection Grades on completion of 9, 18 and
27 years of service. The subsequent clarification dated
21.10.1993 carved out a specific exception for Junior
Engineers, providing that their service shall be counted from
the date of first appointment. This was reiterated by the
Finance Department letter dated 19.05.1997, leaving no
ambiguity that the service of JEs, whether ad-hoc or regular,
shall be counted from their initial entry in service.
15. This Court has, on multiple occasions, interpreted the
1992 Scheme and the 1993 & 1997 clarifications. In
Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt (SBCWP No. 8358/2009 &
4306/2011), the learned Single Judge held that once an
employee is regularized, the benefits must relate back to the
initial date of appointment. The judgment was upheld by the
Division Bench and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon
dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions on 20.07.2012.
Similar recognition of past service for financial progression is
found in Dr. Suresh Chand Agarwal, where exclusion of ad-
hoc service was held unjustified, and the judgment attained
finality up to the Supreme Court.
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (15 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
16. In several other matters relating to similarly placed
Junior Engineers such as Bhiya Ram Vishnoi v. State of
Rajasthan decided on 14.02.2017 , Gopi Ram Marwal & Anr.
v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 23.10.2018 Gopi
Ram Marwal, and connected litigation this Court has
consistently held that service rendered on ad-hoc basis prior
to regularization must be counted for Selection Grades and
financial upgradation, especially where such service was
rendered without break and under the governing Rules.
17. The respondents, however, have taken a contrary view
in the impugned orders dated 20.04.2021, 02.06.2021,
09.07.2021 and communication dated 03.09.2019, holding
that ad-hoc service cannot be counted for ACP/3rd ACP. Such
withdrawal of benefits is unsupported by any statutory
amendment, and is contrary to the Government's own
exception in favour of Junior Engineers, as well as binding
judicial precedents.
18. This Court finds no justification for adopting different
criteria at different stages, counting ad-hoc service for
Selection Grades, but denying the same for ACP/3rd ACP--
when the underlying principle under the 1992 Scheme, the
1993 exception, and subsequent ACP schemes remains that
continuous service rendered on the same post must be
counted.
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (16 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
19. The impugned orders are therefore unsustainable,
being contrary to earlier circulars, executive instructions, and
settled law laid down by this Court and affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners are entitled to have
their service counted from their initial date of appointment
for purposes of Selection Grades/ACP/3rd ACP, with
consequential benefits.
Operative Directions
20. The impugned orders dated 31.12.2003 (to the extent
challenged), 20.04.2021, 02.06.2021, 09.07.2021, and
communication dated 03.09.2019, as well as all
consequential withdrawal orders, are hereby quashed and
set aside.
21. The respondents are directed to count the ad-hoc
service rendered by the petitioners from their respective
dates of initial appointment on the post of Junior Engineer
for the purposes of:
Selection Grades of 9, 18 and 27 years, and
ACP / 3rd ACP benefits under the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and amendments thereto.
22. The respondents shall accordingly re-fix the pay,
restore/ grant the financial upgradations, and release the
consequential arrears, within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of this order.
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50415] (17 of 17) [CW-5037/2018]
[2025:RJ-JD:50420] [CW-12134/2021]
[2025:RJ-JD:50422] [CW-3961/2020]
23. Arrears shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, to be
calculated from the date the benefit became due till the date
of actual payment.
24. All three writ petitions stand allowed in the above
terms. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
104-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 04:48:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
