[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Bahal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:8292]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19029/2025
Ram Bahal S/o Shri Ramasare, Aged About 68 Years, R/o 214,
Sureshia, Ward No. 60, Near Indira Gandhi School,
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources (North),
Hanumangarh-Junction, Hanumangarh.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle,
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-Ii,
Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Ghaghar Sub Division, Water
Resources, Hanumangarh Junction, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
13/02/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Harphool Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.13130/2016 (decided on
05.12.2022).
2. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to
refute the above submission.
3. He however, submits that a liberty be granted to the
respondent-Authority to verify the factual aspect.
4. In Harphool Singh's case (supra), the Court observed and
held as under:
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:24:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8292] (2 of 3) [CW-19029/2025]
"It is an admitted position that the petitioners were originally
the employees of the IGNP Department and were regularised
w.e.f. 01.01.1998 while in service with the IGNP Department.
The logic and reasoning behind the issuance of the order dated
25.04.2012 is that because of the Work Charged cadre being
declared as dying cadre, the Mate working with the IGNP
Department could not have been granted promotion on the
next promotional post and therefore they were held entitled to
be promoted as Work Supervisor Gr.I and to be entitled to the
grade pay payable to Work Supervisor Gr.I. The same was for
the reason that the Mate and the Work Supervisor Gr.II were
declared to be the equivalent post and the promotional post of
Work Supervisor Gr.II was Work Supervisor Gr.I.
The order dated 25.04.2012 issued by the Finance
Department specifically directed that the same would come
into force w.e.f. 01.01.1998. Admittedly, the petitioners were
the employees of IGNP on 01.01.1998 and thus, had accrued a
right in their favour with effect from that date. They can
subsequently not be discriminated only on the ground that
they had been transferred to the Water Resources Department
in the year 2011.It is clear on record that the Mate working
with the IGNP and the Mate working with the Water Resources
Department/CAD were appointed on equivalent post and were
governed by the same Service Rules at the first instance i.e. at
the time of their appointment. It is also clear on record that
the Mate of both the Departments were discharging the same
duties and while passing the order in the year 1995, it was
specifically found that the post of Mate was equivalent to the
post of Work Supervisor Gr.II as both were performing/
discharging the same duties. It is only because of the said fact
and reasoning that they were held entitled to the promotional
post of Work Supervisor Gr.I and were granted the benefits by
virtue of order dated 25.04.2012. This Court cannot find a
single point, logic or reason to discriminate between the
services of the petitioners and the services of the Mate
working with the IGNP Department. A mere transfer from IGNP
Department to Water Resources Department, which also is a
Branch of the IGNP Department, cannot disentitle the
petitioners from the benefits which had accrued in their favour
in the year 1998 when admittedly they were working with the
IGNP Department.
In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Seema Sharma;
Civil Appeal No. 3892/2022, decided on 12.05.2022 the
Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar issue held as
under:-
"23. The fixation of scales of pay is a matter
of policy, with which the Courts can only
interfere in exceptional cases where there is
discrimination between two sets of
employees appointed by the same authority,
in the same manner, where the eligibility
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:24:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8292] (3 of 3) [CW-19029/2025]
criteria is the same and the duties are
identical in every aspects."
Keeping into consideration the above observation of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the clear opinion that the
present matters do fall within the parameters as laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court. This is a specific case wherein keeping
into consideration the said parameters, the Court definitely
ought to interfere as here is a clear discrimination between the
employees appointed by the same authorities, in the same
manner, wherein the eligibility criteria was also the same and
duties are also identical in all the aspects.
So far as the clarification dated 20.05.2016 is
concerned, the contents or the facts of the same were never
pleaded in reply to the writ petition nor was the said document
placed on record. Therefore, the same could not have been
refuted or controverted by the petitioners. Even otherwise, this
Court is of the specific view that the clarification dated
20.05.2016 cannot be held to be valid as the same specifically
discriminates between two set of employees of the same
parent department.
In view of the above observations, the present writ
petitions are allowed. The respondent authorities are directed
to grant the benefit of the three selection grades to the
petitioners on the promotional post of Work Supervisor Gr.I on
the same terms, as granted to the Mate of the IGNP
Department. The essential orders be passed within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of the present order.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of."
5. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is
also allowed on the same terms and directions as in the case of
Harphool Singh (supra).
6. However, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, appropriate
orders would be passed in favour of the petitioner.
7. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
68-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 03:24:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
