Mahendra Kumar Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8496)
2026 Latest Caselaw 2451 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2451 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Kumar Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8496) on 16 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:8496]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3233/2026

Mahendra Kumar Rajpurohit S/o Shri Chunnilal Rajpurohit, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Suthar Vas, Pindwara, District Sirohi
(Rajasthan).
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of    Rajasthan,          Through          Secretary    To   The
         Government, Department Of Local Self Government,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Director And Special Secretary, Local Self Department,
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       Commissioner And Secretary To The Government, Local
         Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.       District Collector, Sirohi.
5.       Municipal Board, Pindwara, District Sirohi Through Its
         Chairman.
6.       Shri Yogesh Acharya, Assistant Administrative Officer,
         Sanchore.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Uttam Singh.
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate and
                                     Additional Advocate General with
                                     Mr. Ayush Gehlot.
                                     Ms. Anita Rajpurohit on behalf of
                                     Mr. Dinesh Suthar.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

16/02/2026

1. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the matter has been taken up and heard

for final disposal at the admission stage.

(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:11:49 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8496] (2 of 4) [CW-3233/2026]

2. The issue and the facts involved in the present writ petition

are similar to the issue and facts as involved in the case of

Laxman Singh Bhati Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2467/2026, decided on 05.02.2026

wherein, this Court considers the scope of Section 25-A and Rule

7(8)(b)(iii) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter

referred to as 'theRules of 1951').

3. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 05.02.2026

passed in Laxman Singh Bhati's case (supra) reads as follows:-

"6. The Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) of the Rules of 1951 reads as follows:

"Rule 7-Unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context the terms defined in this Chapter are used in the rules in the sense here explained:--

(1) to (7) xxxxxxxxxxx (8) Duty:-

(a) xxxxxxxxxxx

(b) Government may issue orders declaring that in the following circumstance, or in circumstances similar thereto, a Government servant may be treated as on duty.

(i) xxxxxxxxxxxx

(ii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(iii) In the case of persons who, on their first appointment to State Service, do not, before they report themselves at the seat of Government or other specified station, in accordance with the orders of the appointing authority, receive orders to take charge of a specified post, during the interval between the date of such report and the date on which they take charge of their duties.

(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:11:49 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8496] (3 of 4) [CW-3233/2026]

Note:- Period of compulsory waiting by a Government servant returning from leave or after making over charge of his old post for orders of Government posting him to a particular post falls in this clause."

7. Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1951 reads as follows:

"25. Pay during course of training etc.-- xxxxxxxxxxxx 25A. Pay during awaiting posting orders.-- A Government servant who is compulsorily kept under awaiting posting orders under note below Rule7(8)(b)

(iii) shall be entitled to the pay and allowances at the rate at which he was drawing immediately before relinquishing charge in the old post. He shall not be allowed Conveyance Allowance or permanent Travelling Allowance during the period of awaiting posting order."

8. This Court has considered the circumstances under which APO orders can be passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23795/2025: Dr. Ashok Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The present order was passed on the basis of certain complaints. The order, in effect, amounts to being of a stigmatic nature. The circumstances under which a person can be put on APO by changing the Headquarters are enumerated in the rules referred to hereinabove; however, the present order, being of a stigmatic nature i.e. an APO order, is not one of the enumerated conditions. Therefore, the order impugned dated 28.01.2026 (Annex.1) is liable to be set aside on this ground.

9. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 28.01.2026 (Annex.1) is set aside, with liberty to draw fresh appropriate proceedings as per law, if they chooses."

(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:11:49 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8496] (4 of 4) [CW-3233/2026]

4. In the result, the instant writ petition is also allowed in the

same terms as in Laxman Singh Bhati's case (supra). However,

this order will not come in the way of the respondents to take a

fresh decision in the matter of transfer of the petitioner.

5. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 256-Mohan/-

(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:11:49 PM)