[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh Udawat vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52322-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 667/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Department Of Home
Affairs, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Law And
Justice Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Prosecution Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Bhanwar Singh Udawat S/o Shri Ram Singh Ji, Aged About 68
Years, Resident Of Bar Tehsil Raipur, District Pali. (Retired)
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 522/2022
Bhanwar Singh Udawat S/o Shri Ram Singh Ji, Aged About 71
Years, Resident Of Bar, Tehsil Raipur District Pali, Presently
Working As L.d.c. In The Office Of Assistance Public Prosecutor-
Ii, Judicial Magistrate Court, Bar, District Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Department Of Home
Affairs, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Law And
Justice Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Prosecution Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Deepak Chandak for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
For Respondent : Mr. L.S. Udawat for
Mr. D.S. Udawat
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
04/12/2025
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 667/2022:
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State assailing
the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated
15.02.2022, whereby, the learned Single Judge has granted
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52322-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-667/2022]
indulgence in the interest of justice and directed the State to
allow re-option of the writ petitioner under the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Rules of 1987') and accordingly make his re-fixation.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
pointed out that the learned Single Judge has agreed with the
contentions of the State that writ petitioner had exercised the
option to be governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised
Pay Scale) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of
1989') and had not objected for continuing in the Rules of 1989.
For the first time he had made representation in the year 1997
and, thereafter, filed writ petition in the year 2004 claiming his
pay scale fixation under the Rules of 1987, which reflected that
the writ petitioner had accepted his claim for being fixed under
the Rules of 1989.
3. Learned counsel submits that after the introduction of Rules
of 1989, certain discrepancies were observed by the State
authorities and, vide Gazette Notification dated 20.11.1993, the
employees were granted two months' time to submit their option/
re-option qua the Rules and to opt for being governed either by
the Rules of 1987 or by Rules of 1989. The writ petitioner had not
opted to be governed by Rules of 1987 and he, therefore,
continued to draw his pay and salary in terms of the Rules of
1989.
4. The petitioner had exercised his option of change only in the
year 1997, which has been declined by the department. Learned
counsel submits that as no other person has been given a second
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52322-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-667/2022]
option. The order passed by the learned Single Judge would open
a pandora box and as it cannot be only given to one person to be
allowed to re-opt under the Rules of 1987.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner supports
the judgment and submits that entitlement for re-option ought to
be given, if anomaly is being crept in the pay scales. He also
relied upon one judgment reported in (2000) 2 RLW 1034
(Manohar Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and
submits that the Court had allowed re-option for revision of pay
under the Rules of 1987.
6. We have considered the submissions.
7. The State of Rajasthan has been revising the pay scales of
its employees from time to time, where the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules 1983 were introduced and
brought into effect from 01.09.1981. Thereafter, the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules of 1987 were introduced
and were brought into force with effect from 01.09.1986. Rules of
1987 came to be further revised with effect from 01.09.1988 by
introducing Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules,
1989. The employees were required to give an option to switch
over to the Rules of 1989 or to continue with the Rules of 1987.
Those, who did not give an option to shift to the Rules of 1989
were allowed to continue under the old Rules of 1987. A one time
option had been asked from all the employees in the year 1993
vide Gazette Notification dated 20.11.1993. However, the writ
petitioner did not submit his option to switch over to Rules of
1989. Accordingly, he continued to draw the old pay scale,
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52322-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-667/2022]
although the new pay scale would have allowed him to get a jump
from Rs.1225/- to Rs.1400/-. Resultantly he drew his benefits of
9/18/27 years of selection under the old pay scale which were
lesser.
8. We notice that the option given vide Gazette Notification
dated 20.11.1993 was required to be opted within a period of two
months. Such option was never given again to the employees
and, therefore, the writ petitioner preferred a representation and
prayed that he may be given such an option. He submitted the
said representation in the year 1997, which was examined by a
Committee on 21.08.2000, and the same was rejected. The writ
petitioner did not challenge the said decision for four years and
thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court. The respondent-
State objected and pointed out the immense delay in claiming the
pay scale under the Rules of 1989. Considering the objection, the
learned Single Judge reached to the conclusion that petition was
highly belated. However, the learned Single Judge while accepting
the objections raised by the respondents and opining that petition
was filed belatedly without any cogent reasons coming forward,
proceeded to sympathise and granted indulgence by allowing him
to submit re-option and hence, the present appeal has been filed
by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge.
9. In relation to pay scale, rules have to be followed for all in a
similar fashion. Sympathising one writ petitioner would change
the entire scenario. Once an option is allowed to one writ
petitioner, the same would have to be allowed to all, creating a
situation, which the Rule making authority never contemplated.
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52322-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-667/2022]
10. We, therefore, do not accept the view taken by the learned
Single Judge of granting special indulgence to the writ petitioner.
Moreover, he has been sleeping over his own rights since long
from 1993 to 2004, that too, is a sufficient reason for not granting
any indulgence to the writ petitioner.
11. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed. The order passed by
the learned Single Judge is set aside.
12. No order as to costs.
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 522/2022:
1. The appeal preferred by the appellant seeking the benefit
from the date, the option was given to others, namely, from 1993
and not from the date the writ petition has been filed,
consequently, also fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
120-121-pooja/-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 02:14:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
