[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shrutika Chauhan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10719) on 26 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10719]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4059/2026
1. Shrutika Chauhan D/o Shri Om Prakash Chauhan, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o 509, Roshan Colony, Sector-12,
Saweena Khera (Rural) Udaipur, District- Udaipur,
Rajasthan. Presently Posted As School Lecturer Sanskrit.
2. Vijay Singh S/o Shri Mohar Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Village And Post- Buchawas, Tehsil- Taranagar,
District- Churu, Rajasthan. Presently Posted As School
Lecturer Sanskrit.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C. with
Mr. Bhupesh Charan
Mr. Piyush Bhandari for
Dr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
26/02/2026
1. At the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for
the parties, the matter has been taken up and heard for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
action of the respondents in discriminating the pay-scale of the
petitioners vis-a-vis other employees recruited in the same
recruitment process who have been granted higher pay-scale on
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:48:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10719] (2 of 6) [CW-4059/2026]
the ground that they have joined before the cut-off date for
joining; however, the petitioners joined later to the cut-off date.
3. The facts of the present case discloses that the petitioners
along with other candidates were selected to the post of School
Lecturers in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the
respondent - authorities in the year 2015. The respondent
authorities have issued different appointment orders to the
various candidates selected in the recruitment process to the post
of School Lecturers (Sanskrit). The petitioners in the present case
were issued appointment order on 28.06.2017.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that all the appointment
orders were issued prior to the last cut-off date for joining, i.e.
10.07.2017. Though the appointment order was given to the
petitioners on 28.06.20217, 29.06.2017 and 30.06.2017, they
have joined after cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2017 but prior to the last
cut-off date for joining i.e. 10.07.2017 in the post of School
Lecturer (Sanskrit) in various schools. However, such later joining
of the petitioners was within the last cut-off date for joining (i.e.
10.07.2017) fixed by the respondent - authorities.
5. The School Lecturers who have joined their services prior to
30.06.2017, they were granted one additional annual grade
increment while fixing their salary and they are drawing higher
pay scale. However, the present petitioners were granted one
annual grade increment less than that granted to the other
persons on the ground that they have joined their services after
30.06.2017.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that there cannot be any unequal fixation of the pay among the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:48:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10719] (3 of 6) [CW-4059/2026]
persons who were selected in the same recruitment process on
the same post, basing on the date of their joining. The
respondents are required to adopt the date of first joining of the
employee or the last cut-off date as mentioned by the
respondent- authorities in order to be granted equal annual grade
increments to all persons appointed in the same recruitment. It is
also submitted that there cannot be any discrimination between
the employees who have joined their services prior to 30.06.2017
and subsequent to such cut-off date for fixation of the pay by the
respondent - authorities. Such an unequal fixation of pay among
the employees of the same recruitment process and on the very
same post violates their fundamental right enshrined under Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents try to
justify the action of the respondents in fixation of the unequal pay
on account of grant of one additional increment. According to him,
the employees who have joined their services prior to 30.06.2017
were required to be given one additional increment. However, the
persons who have joined their service subsequent to 30.06.2017,
they were granted one less increment. It is also submitted that
such granting of different increments is in consonance with the
Circular issued by the Department of Finance. They tried to justify
the action of the respondents by placing reliance on the circular
issued by the Finance Department.
8. Having considered the above contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the undisputed facts in the
present case are that the all the School Lecturers were selected
and appointed in the same selection process in pursuance of the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:48:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10719] (4 of 6) [CW-4059/2026]
same advertisement for the post of School Lecturers. However,
they were issued different appointment orders.
9. Unequal pay fixation was the result of adopting of two
different joining dates by the respondents. The persons who have
joined their service prior to 30.06.2017 were granted one
additional increment whereas, the present petitioners, who have
joined their services subsequent to 30.06.2017, were granted one
increment less than the other group of employees.
10. The procedure adopted by the respondents is contrary to the
established principles of service jurisprudence. The candidates
who have been selected, appointed and joined their services in the
same recruitment process pursuant to the very same
advertisement on the same post of School Lecturers but their
appointment order were issued on different dates and they joined
their services prior to 30.06.2017 and subsequent to 30.06.2017
but before the last cut-off date for joining i.e. 10.07.2017, they
cannot be discriminated in the matter of fixation of pay. This Court
is of the view that the respondents should have adopted either the
first date of joining or the last date of joining with regard to the
same recruitment process so as to extend the benefit of annual
grant of grade increments. They cannot adopt two different dates
of joining for extending the benefit of annual grade increments
among the candidates in the same recruitment process.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents tried to
justify the action of the respondents in extending unequal benefit
of granting one annual grade increment is mainly based on the
Circular issued by the Department of Finance dated 30.09.2017. A
perusal of the Circular makes it clear the same is contrary to the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:48:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10719] (5 of 6) [CW-4059/2026]
settled/established principles of law and also against the spirit of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be two
different dates of joining for the purpose of granting of increments
to the employees selected and appointed in the same recruitment
process. Such discrimination committed by the respondents is
unsustainable even if the same is based on the circular of the
Finance Department. The respondents should have ignored the
provisions of the Circular in the matter of granting annual grade
increments.
12. The respondents should have adopted first date of joining or
last date of joining so as to grant annual grade increments or any
other date which should be before the last cut-off date for joining
of the employees in the same recruitment process. They cannot be
permitted to adopt two different dates of joining in respect of the
candidates appointed in the same selection process for grant of
increments and fixation of pay-scale.
13. Therefore, the action of the respondents in adopting two
different joining dates for fixation of salary by giving annual grade
increment to one and not to another is, in such circumstances,
illegal and unsustainable.
14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The actions of
respondents in unequal fixation of pay among the persons
selected and appointed in the same recruitment process based on
their dates of joining are set aside. The respondents have to treat
all such candidates as a single unit for grant of annual grade
increments whether, they have joined prior to 30.06.2017 or
subsequent to 30.06.2017. Any anomaly arising due to adoption
of such improper dates of joining for the purpose of granting one
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:48:08 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10719] (6 of 6) [CW-4059/2026]
annual grade increment among the candidates appointed in the
same recruitment shall be rationalized and shall be corrected. For
this purpose, if any correction is required to be carried out by the
respondents, they may make necessary corrections in their official
records in the matter of grant of annual grade increment after
giving notice to affected parties. The respondents are directed to
carry out the needful exercise after hearing all the parties
concerned, within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
14. Stay petition and all the pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J
306-T.Singh/-
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:48:08 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
