[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:55213) on 19 December, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:55213]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17600/2018
1. Narendra Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 64 Years,
R/o Near Holi Chowk, Nayapura, Lal Saagar, Jodhpur.
2. Dinesh Chandra Mathur S/o Harish Chandra Mathur,,
Aged About 64 Years, R/o 25-A, Lal Singh Colony,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
3. Kanchan Singh Babel D/o Mohan Singh Babel, Aged About
57 Years, R/o Dhingo Ki Ghati, Kanod, Distt. Udaipur
(Raj.).
4. Om Prakash Ajmera S/o Roshan Lal Ajmera,, Aged About
53 Years, R/o 1 B 28, Old Housing Board, Shastri Nagar,
Bhilwara (Raj.).
5. Anil Kumar Goyal S/o Shyam Lal Goyal,, Aged About 56
Years, R/o 7-B-13 Mahaveer Nagar Extension, Near Teen
Batti Circle, Kota.
6. Mukut Bihari Meena S/o Shri Devi Lal Meena,, Aged About
52 Years, R/o 1-K-18, Mahaveer Nagar Extension, Kota
(Raj.).
7. Motikishan Bohra S/o Late Shri Udaikishan Bohra,, Aged
About 63 Years, R/o 17/648, Chopasani Housing Board,
Jodhpur.
8. Dilip Kumar Sharma S/o Dhuli Lal Sharma,, Aged About
53 Years, R/o 831, B, Shreenath Puram, Kota.
9. Vinod Kothiari S/o Shri Shankar Singh,, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Quarter No. 06, Jalday Vibhagh Colony, Forest
Road, Jhalawar (Raj.).
10. Rajendra Shrivastav S/o R.P. Shrivastav,, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Behind Alok School, College Road, Adarsh
Colony, Nimbahera (Raj.).
11. Mukesh Kumar Moad S/o Dalu Ram Moad,, Aged About 52
Years, R/o H.no. 5 Phed Colony, Near Mama Bhanja Water
Tank, Forest Road, Jhalawar (Raj.).
12. Shyam Bihari Bairwa S/o Shri Sukha Ram,, Aged About
52 Years, R/o Ww/13 Phed Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore.
13. Narendra Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Uma Shankar Vyas,, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o H.no. 119-Jankapuri, Mala Road,
Kota.
14. Gopal Lal Meena S/o Kanhaiya Lal Meena,, Aged About 51
Years, R/o 3-G-47, Mhaveer Nagar, Extension Kota (Raj.).
15. Sita Ram Meena S/o Shri Manak Chand Meena,, Aged
About 52 Years, R/o 776, Balaji Nagar, Kota (Raj.).
16. Shobhagya Raj Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh, Aged About 49
Years, R/o B-2 Watershed Colony, Q-Sector, Azad Nagar,
Bhilwara.
17. Ashok Kumar Swarnkar S/o Ram Gopal,, Aged About 49
Years, R/o 36, Ganpati Nagar, W.no. 1, Begun, Distt.
(Uploaded on 21/12/2025 at 12:55:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/12/2025 at 09:07:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55213] (2 of 6) [CW-17600/2018]
Chittorgarh.
18. Renu Dhabhai S/o B.l. Dhabhai,, Aged About 46 Years, R/
o Plot No. 37, Sector 5 M.n. Extension Kota.
19. Ghanshyam Kalwar S/o Kajori Lal Kalwar,, Aged About 48
Years, R/o 372, Private Sector, Subhash Nagar Ii, Kota.
20. Balbhadra Kumar Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma,, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o 3-A-14, Mhaveer Nagar Extension,
Kota.
21. Raman Lal S/o Vishram,, Aged About 52 Years, R/o House
No. 190/74, Pratap Nagar, Sector 19, Sanganer Jaipur.
22. Sita Ram S/o Murli Ram,, Aged About 52 Years, R/o E-85,
Budh Vihar, Alwar.
23. Mahendra Kumar Purohit S/o Shiv Kishan Purohit,, Aged
About 56 Years, R/o 4/66 Adarsh Nagar, Phalodi.
24. Ramchandra Vyas S/o Mool Raj Vyas,, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Nathawaton Ki Bari, Navchokiya, Jodhpur.
25. Surendra Pareek S/o Ram Prasad Pareek,, Aged About 55
Years, R/o 143, Subhash Nagar Vistar, Shobhawato Ki
Dhani, Jodhpur.
26. Ajay Singh Choudhary S/o Laxmi Narayan Choudhary,,
Aged About 57 Years, R/o 53, B Mahadev Nagar, Pal
Road, Jodhpur.
27. Pramod Kumar Mathur S/o Benilal Mathur,, Aged About 59
Years, R/o B-104, Shankar Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. 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. 5345/2019
1. Mala Ram S/o Bhalla Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 98,
Nehru Nagar, In Front Of B.r. Birla School, Jodhpur.
2. Shri Pushp Kumar Jain S/o Sohan Lal Jain, Aged About 49
Years, R/o 103, Ridhi-Sidhi Enclave Bundi Road, Kunhari,
Kota.
3. Vivek Kumar Sharma S/o Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 44 Years, R/o 23, Ganpati Nagar, Opp Hariyali
Restaurant, Bundi Road, Kota (Raj.).
(Uploaded on 21/12/2025 at 12:55:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/12/2025 at 09:07:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55213] (3 of 6) [CW-17600/2018]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through - 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
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Gopa, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
Ms. Mehali Mehta
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
19/12/2025
1. The present writ petitions have been filed with a prayer that
the respondents be directed to grant benefit of first selection
grade to the petitioners on completion of nine years of service
w.e.f. the date of their respective initial appointment. A further
prayer for grant of subsequent selection grades has been made.
2. Learned AAG appearing for the respondent State submits
that the issue stands covered by the judgment passed by Hon'ble
the Division Bench in D.B. Review Petition (Writ)
No.18/2019; State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Bhiya Ram
Vishnoi (decided on 29.04.2025).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to
refute the fact that the issue stands covered by Bhiya Ram
Vishnoi (supra). Counsel however relies upon the judgment
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shyam Sunder
(Uploaded on 21/12/2025 at 12:55:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55213] (4 of 6) [CW-17600/2018]
Mathur & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.5037/2018 and other connected matters
(decided on 03.12.2025).
5. In Bhiya Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Court observed and held
as under:
"As far as the relief that the period of ad hoc services
required to be computed while calculating the period of 9,
18 and 27 years of service, we hold that those persons,
who were appointed before 17.2.1998 (i.e., the date of
issuance of the circular) and had completed 9 years of
their services before 1.9.1996 are entitled for computing
their ad hoc services for grant of selection scale and their
cases will be covered by the judgments rendered in the
cases of Hukum Singh and Raghunath Ram (supra) and
the cases in which the appointments have been made
after the cut-off date 1.9.1996, their cases are required to
be considered in the light of the circulars dated 17.2.1998
and dated 8.5.2009 keeping in mind the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Jagdish
Narain Chaturvedi (supra)."
6. The Court further concluded as under:
"In view of the discussions made above, the review
petition merits acceptance. The same is allowed and it is
held that the Junior Engineers, who are appointed in the
year 1987-88 in the department on ad hoc basis will be
entitled for calculating their services for grant of selection
scale on completion of 9 years of their service and their
cases will be covered by the judgments rendered in the
case of Hukum Singh and Raghunath Ram (supra),
whereas the cases of those Junior Engineers, who are
appointed after the cut-off date, i.e., 1.9.1996 as
mandated in the notification dated 17.2.1998, are not
covered by the cases of Hukum Singh and Raghunath
Ram (supra) and, therefore, the judgments rendered for
those Junior Engineers are recalled and their matters may
be placed before the Division Bench for re- consideration.
Before parting with, it is made clear that we have
not taken into consideration any other ground in the
present review petition as the same were not deliberated/
considered by the Division Bench in its order under
review."
(Uploaded on 21/12/2025 at 12:55:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55213] (5 of 6) [CW-17600/2018]
7. A bare perusal of the above conclusion clarifies that Hon'ble
the Division Bench held that those persons who were appointed
before 17.02.1998 and had completed nine years of their services
before 01.09.1996 would only be entitled for computing their ad
hoc services for grant of selection scale. So far as those who had
been appointed after 01.09.1996 were to be governed by circulars
dated 17.02.1998 and 08.05.2009.
8. Applying the above ratio to the present matters, it is only
petitioners No.3- Kanchan Singh Babel, No.7-Moti Kishan Bohra
and No.10-Rajendra Srivastav in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.17600/2018 who fall under the said criteria i.e. were appointed
before 17.02.1998 and had completed their nine years of service
before 01.09.1996. So far as all the other petitioners are
concerned, none of them fall under the said criteria.
9. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to grant
benefit of first selection grade to petitioner Nos.3, 7 and 10 in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.17600/2018 (as aforementioned) w.e.f. the
date they completed 9 year of service. While computing the period
of 9 years, the period of their adhoc services shall also be
calculated. The writ petition qua the said petitioners stand partly
allowed.
10. So far as the remaining petitioners in both the writ petitions
are concerned, they would definitely be governed by Circulars
dated 17.02.1998 and 08.05.2009. The writ petitions qua the said
petitioners stand dismissed.
11. The benefit/consequential benefits to petitioner Nos.3, 7 and
10 (as aforementioned) be granted within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of copy of the present order.
(Uploaded on 21/12/2025 at 12:55:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55213] (6 of 6) [CW-17600/2018]
12. It is clarified that this Court has allowed the petition qua the
above petitioners only to the extent of grant of first selection
grade on completion of nine years of service. So far as the grant
of second and third selection grade on completion of 18 and 27
years of services is concerned, as Hon'ble the Division Bench has
kept the issue open and the same is pending adjudication, the
petitioners would be governed by the decision as passed by
Hon'ble the Division Bench, qua the 2nd and the 3rd selection
grade.
13. So far as the judgment in Shyam Sunder Mathur (supra)
relied upon by counsel for the petitioners is concerned, evidently,
order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in the
review petition was not placed before the Court and therefore, the
same does not seem to have been taken into consideration. This
Court, being bound by the Division Bench judgment, is under an
obligation to follow the same.
14. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
4-5-manila/-
(Uploaded on 21/12/2025 at 12:55:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
