[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tara Ram Sudi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:2181) on 14 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:2181]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18758/2025
Tara Ram Sudi S/o Shri Hindoo Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Golasan, District Jalore, Presently Posted As Teacher At Govt. Sr.
Sec. School, Bhadwal, Sanchore, District Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
School Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Finance, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. Joint Director, Education Department, Jodhpur.
5. Chief District Education Officer, Jalore.
6. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Dudy.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhupesh Charan on behalf of
Mr. N.K. Mehta, Govt. Counsel.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
14/01/2026
1. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, 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 not granting the salary for the period
from 16.05.1988 to 30.06.1988 and depriving the continuity of
the services with effect from 25.08.1987.
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 06:37:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2181] (2 of 4) [CW-18758/2025]
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was given
appointment letter dated 01.08.1987 and he joined the service on
22.08.1987. By the proceedings dated 04.05.1988, the services of
the petitioner were discontinued with effect from 16.05.1988 to
01.07.1988. The immediate cause of action for filing of the
present writ petition are the directions given by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Jorawar Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 555/2005,
decided on 07.11.2006.
4. The facts in the said case reveals that the petitioner therein
was appointed on 03.02.1992 and joined the services on
14.02.1992. While considering grant of selection grade, the date
of initial appointment of the petitioner in the said case was treated
to be 01.07.1992. The same was assailed in the year 2005
challenging the grant of selection grade with the effective date.
The writ petition was allowed. Based on the said judgment,
another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Yogesh
Kumar Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 3534/2009, decided on 20.01.2014 allowed
similar directions by allowing the writ petition (No. 3534/2009).
5. The grievance of the present petitioner is that even though
the regularization of services was treated with effect from
25.08.1987, the petitioner was not granted any salary covering
the period from 16.05.1988 to 01.07.1988. The reason seems to
be very clear that there was an order dated 04.05.1988 whereby,
the services of the petitioner were discontinued.
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 06:37:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2181] (3 of 4) [CW-18758/2025]
6. The petitioner had not challenged at any point of time the
order of discontinuation dated 25.08.1987. If such an order is not
challenged, the order of discontinuation would remain in force.
Though, by subsequent orders, the effective date was given
retrospective effect from 25.08.1987. However, by order dated
23.12.2015, his initial date of appointment was treated to be
25.08.1987 for the reasons best known to the authorities. It is not
in dispute that the date of 25.08.1987 was taken as the date for
grant of selection grade.
7. The petitioner's case is that by the order dated 04.05.1988,
the services of the petitioner were discontinued with effect from
16.05.1988 to 01.07.1988.
8. The petitioner slept over the anomalies created by the
respondents - authority for almost more than 37-38 years. He
woke up from slumber after almost 38 years to challenge
discontinuation of his services even though he was regularly
appointed prior to summer vacations.
9. Though the petitioner has a good case in his favour on the
basis of ratio, had he challenged the action of the respondents at
earliest. He chose to challenge the action of the respondents after
more than 38 years. The petitioner is conscious of all the illegality
created by the respondents and he has allowed such irregularities
to continue till the present writ petition has been filed based on
the similar challenges made in other cases, cited hereinabove
wherein, the aggrieved person had approached the legal forum
within a reasonable time. In the present case, there is an
inordinate and unexplained delay of 37-38 years for which, no
reasonable explanation has been offered.
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 06:37:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2181] (4 of 4) [CW-18758/2025]
10. Without going into the merits of the entitlement of the
petitioner, the present writ petition suffers from delay and latches
and, therefore, equitable relief cannot be given by exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in favour of the petitioner who woke up from slumber after
about 38 years. Further, without challenging the initial order of
discontinuation of his services, directions cannot be given for
release of salary for the disputed period.
11. Therefore, in the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to
dismiss the present writ petition only on the ground of delay and
latches.
12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
146-Mohan/-
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 06:37:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
