[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jeev Singh Deora vs The State Of Rajasthan on 19 December, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1007/2022
Kailash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Udailal Sharma, Aged About
60 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Pansal, Via Pur, Tehsil And
District Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara.
3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1039/2022
Islam Khan S/o Shri Abdul Sattar Khan Pathan, Aged About 61
Years, Resident Of Rituraj Colony, Ajmer Circle, Mandal, District
Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara.
3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1046/2022
Sunil Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Prakash Chand Tiwari, Aged About
64 Years, Resident Of Sunaro Ka Mandir, Junawas, Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 08:41:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB] (2 of 10) [SAW-1007/2022]
Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Magistrate, Zila Parishad Bhilwara.
3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1068/2022
Gulam Rasool Bisayati S/o Late Shri Abdul Rehman, Aged About
67 Years, Resident Of Indra Colony, Mandal, District Bhilwara.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Chief Executive Magistrate, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 736/2023
Jeev Singh Deora S/o Shri Karan Singh Ji, Aged About 58 Years,
By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Village Godana, Tehsil Sheoganj,
District Sirohi, At Present Working As Gram Vikas Adhikari,
Panchayat Samiti Sheoganj, District Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary
To The Government, Rural Development And Panchayati
Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariate,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sirohi (Raj.).
3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Sheoganj, District Sirohi (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 321/2024
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 08:41:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB] (3 of 10) [SAW-1007/2022]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Magistrate, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District
Bhilwara.
----Appellants
Versus
Kailash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Udailal Sharma, Aged About
56 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Pansal, Via Pru, Tehsil And
District Bhilwara.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas,
Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R.Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Pawan Bharti
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 27.10.2025
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 27.10.2025
3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is
pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 19.12.2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The present Special Appeals (Writs), filed under Rule 134 of
the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, are directed against the
order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18942/2018 (Kailash Chandra Sharma
v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). By the impugned order, while the
learned Single Judge directed that the service of the appellant be
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB] (4 of 10) [SAW-1007/2022]
counted for the purpose of grant of selection grades from the date
he was declared semi-permanent in the Irrigation Department, the
claim for arrears and other consequential monetary benefits
arising therefrom was declined.
1.1. Since all the instant appeals emanate from a common
controversy, albeit with marginal variations in individual factual
matrices, this Court deems it appropriate, for the purposes of
analogous adjudication, to treat D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
1007/2022 (Kailash Chandra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
as the lead case. Accordingly, the prayer clauses, factual
background, and legal submissions are being adverted to from the
said appeal. The rival submissions of the parties and the
observations recorded in this common judgment shall, unless
expressly stated otherwise, be read and understood with reference
to the facts of the lead case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/writ
petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Munshi on a
temporary basis under the Work Charge Service Rules, 1964 in the
Irrigation Department on 01.02.1985. Upon completion of two
years of service, vide order dated 16.11.1987 issued by the
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, the appellant was
declared semi-permanent on the said post with effect from
01.02.1987.
2.1. Thereafter, the appellant was declared surplus and, pursuant
to a policy decision of the State Government, was absorbed on the
post of Gram Sevak-cum-Officiating Secretary in the Rural
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB] (5 of 10) [SAW-1007/2022]
Development and Panchayati Raj Department. The order of
absorption expressly provided that such appointment would be on
an ad-hoc basis and that the appellant would be placed as junior-
most in the Panchayati Raj Department, without any claim to
seniority.
2.2. After completion of nine years of service in the Panchayati
Raj Department, the appellant was granted the first selection
grade, and upon completion of eighteen years of service, the
second selection grade was also granted. The grievance raised in
the writ petition was that the appellant was entitled to the grant of
selection grades by counting the service rendered by him in the
Irrigation Department, from the date of his initial appointment, in
terms of the notification dated 25.01.1992 governing surplus
employees, and that the denial of such benefit was illegal and
arbitrary.
2.3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions to the
extent of directing that the appellants' service be counted for
grant of selection grades from the date they were declared semi-
permanent in the Irrigation Department, but confined the relief to
notional fixation and consequential pensionary benefits, expressly
denying arrears and retrospective monetary benefits. The present
appeals are directed against this limited denial.
3. Mr. Mukesh Vyas and Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that
the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 is illegal, unjust and
unsustainable to the extent it denies arrears and consequential
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB] (6 of 10) [SAW-1007/2022]
monetary benefits, despite allowing the benefit of selection grades
by counting the appellant's service from the date he was declared
semi-permanent in the Irrigation Department.
3.1. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge
erred in denying arrears solely on the ground that the first
selection grade had been granted to the appellant in the year
1999 and that the writ petition was filed in the year 2018. It was
urged that the appellant was not challenging the grant of selection
grade itself, but was seeking correct fixation of pay by counting
eligible past service, which was wrongly excluded.
3.2. Learned counsel submitted that once the learned Single
Judge held that declaration of semi-permanent status amounted
to regularisation of service and directed that such service be
counted for grant of selection grades, denial of consequential
monetary benefits is legally impermissible. It was contended that
grant of selection grade necessarily carries financial
consequences, and restricting the relief to notional fixation
renders the relief illusory.
3.3. Learned counsel submitted that the claim raised by the
appellant was based on a continuing cause of action, as incorrect
pay fixation has recurring civil consequences affecting salary and
pension. Therefore, the claim could not have been rejected on the
ground of delay or laches.
3.4. Learned counsel submitted that under the notification dated
25.01.1992 governing surplus employees, selection grades are
required to be granted on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB] (7 of 10) [SAW-1007/2022]
qualifying service by counting past service, and that denial of
arrears to the appellant for no fault on his part, despite
recognition of his entitlement, is arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG assisted by Mr. Pawan Bharti,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted
that the impugned order dated 08.09.2022 does not suffer from
any illegality or perversity and has been passed after due
consideration of the facts and applicable law. It was contended
that the learned Single Judge rightly balanced equities by granting
notional fixation while declining arrears and consequential
monetary benefits.
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition was filed
after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly two decades,
inasmuch as the first selection grade was granted to the appellant
in the year 1999, whereas the writ petition was instituted only in
the year 2018. It was urged that such belated claims relating to
pay fixation cannot be entertained as a matter of right.
4.2. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had accepted
the grant of selection grades and the pay fixation made
thereunder without demur for several years, and therefore, is
estopped from seeking retrospective monetary benefits. It was
contended that reopening settled pay matters after a long lapse of
time would disturb administrative and financial finality.
4.3. Learned counsel submitted that the relief granted by the
learned Single Judge strikes a just balance between the competing
equities by protecting the appellant's pensionary interests, while
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB] (8 of 10) [SAW-1007/2022]
simultaneously safeguarding the State from reopening settled
financial liabilities after a considerable lapse of time.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, as well as perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the controversy in the present
Special Appeals is confined to the limited question whether the
appellants, after having secured revision of selection grades by
counting their service from the date of declaration of semi-
permanent status, are entitled to arrears and other retrospective
monetary benefits which have been declined by the learned Single
Judge.
7. This Court observes that the learned Single Judge has
correctly interpreted Proviso 3 to Clause 3 of the notification dated
25.01.1992, read in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain
Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 and State of Haryana v. Sita
Ram & Ors., (2013) 16 SCC 677 and has rightly held that
declaration of semi-permanent status amounts to regularisation of
service for the purposes of grant of selection grades.
7.1. This Court observes that the conclusion that qualifying
service for selection grades is to be reckoned from the date of
such regularisation, and not from the date of absorption in the
Panchayati Raj Department, is in consonance with the statutory
scheme and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
8. This Court further observes that the absorption of the
appellants in the Panchayati Raj Department was subject to
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB] (9 of 10) [SAW-1007/2022]
express conditions of ad-hoc appointment, placement as junior-
most, and denial of seniority, which clearly negate any vested
right to claim retrospective financial parity in the absorbed cadre.
8.1. This Court further observes that having upheld the
substantive entitlement of the appellants, the learned Single
Judge proceeded to mould the relief by exercising judicial
discretion, confining the benefit to notional fixation and
consequential pensionary advantages, while declining arrears and
retrospective monetary benefits.
8.2. This Court observes that such restriction on relief is justified
in view of the admitted and undisputed fact that the first selection
grades were granted to the appellants in the years 1998-1999,
whereas the writ petitions were instituted only in the year 2018,
after an inordinate and unexplained delay.
9. This Court also observes that although the writ petitions
were entertained on the principle of recurring cause of action
affecting pensionary benefits, such indulgence cannot be extended
to reopen long-settled pay matters by granting arrears for past
periods, particularly when the appellants had accepted the
existing pay fixation without protest for several years.
10. This Court further observes that the appellants have failed to
establish any case of discrimination or parity with similarly
situated employees who were granted arrears despite comparable
delay, and in the absence of such pleading or proof, the claim for
retrospective monetary benefits lacks constitutional foundation.
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54050-DB] (10 of 10) [SAW-1007/2022]
11. This Court observes that reopening settled pay structures
after decades would have serious administrative and fiscal
ramifications, and the learned Single Judge has rightly balanced
individual equity with institutional discipline while shaping the
relief.
12. This Court observes that the discretion exercised by the
learned Single Judge is neither arbitrary nor perverse, but is
grounded in settled principles governing delay, laches,
acquiescence, and equitable relief under writ jurisdiction.
13. This Court observes that the present appeals essentially seek
re-appreciation of a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion, which
is impermissible within the limited scope of appellate interference
under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952.
13.1.This Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 08.09.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference
within the limited scope of appellate jurisdiction is made out.
14. Consequently, the instant Special Appeals are dismissed.
14.1.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
135-SKant/-
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 02:23:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
