[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dimple vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13813) on 24 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13813]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5506/2026
1. Dimple D/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Swami, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Inderpura, Post Dudhwakhara, Tehsil
Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan. Presently Posted As
School Lecturer Geography.
2. Neelu D/o Shri Somdatt, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Bassi
Naga, Via Kalwar, Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur, Rajasthan,
Presently Posted As School Lecturer Geography.
3. Pooja Kumari D/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village Bhojasar, Post Nua Tehsil Jhunjhunu,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Presently Posted As School
Lecturer Geography.
4. Khushboo D/o Shri Prabhu Singh Poonia, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Rajeev Nagar, Post Udawas, Tehsil
Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Presently
Posted As School Lecturer Geography.
5. Santosh Yadav D/o Shri Hardev Yadav, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Kalyanpura, Post Hanutiya, Tehsil
Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. Presently Posted As
School Lecturer Geography.
6. Vanita Divesh D/o Shri Prem Sukh Divesh, Aged About 44
Years, R/o A-21 (A) Anita Colony Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. Presently Posted As School Lecturer
Geography.
7. Hariom Meena S/o Shri Bhanwani Shanker Meena, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Village Jharwa, Post Ishwarpura,
Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran, Rajasthan. Presently
Posted As School Lecturer Geography.
8. Anjali Meena D/o Shri Gopal Singh Meena, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Qtr No.ii/3, Govt. Watershed Colony, Front Of
Bharat Petrol Pump Khempura, Udaipur Rajasthan.
Presently Posted As School Lecturer Geography.
9. Yogayata D/o Shri Bhoop Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/
o Village Jasana, Post Phephana, Tehsil-Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. Presently Posted As School
Lecturer Geography.
----Petitioners
Versus
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:39:34 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:32:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13813] (2 of 7) [CW-5506/2026]
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.
Mr. Dimple Deora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
24/03/2026
1. 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 the ground
that they have joined before the cut-off date for joining; however,
the petitioners joined later to the cut-off date.
2. 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 (Geography). The appointment orders were
issued on 28.06.20217, 29.06.2017 and 30.06.2017. The
petitioners in the present case were issued appointment orders
from 28.06.2017.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:39:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13813] (3 of 7) [CW-5506/2026]
3. 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 orders were given on
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 on the post of School Lecturer (Geography) 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.
4. The School Lecturers who have obtained the appointment
orders either on 28.06.2017, 29.06.2017 or 30.06.2017 and 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.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that there cannot be any unequal fixation of the pay among the
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
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:39:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13813] (4 of 7) [CW-5506/2026]
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.
6. 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.
7. Having considered the above contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the undisputed facts in the
present cases are that the all the School Lecturers were selected
and appointed in the same selection process in pursuance of the
same advertisement for the post of School Lecturers. However,
they were issued different appointment orders i.e. on 28.06.2017,
29.06.2017 and 30.06.2017.
8. 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.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:39:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13813] (5 of 7) [CW-5506/2026]
9. 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.
10. 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
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
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:39:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13813] (6 of 7) [CW-5506/2026]
provisions of the Circular in the matter of granting annual grade
increments.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
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
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:39:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13813] (7 of 7) [CW-5506/2026]
concerned, within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
14. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
208-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:39:34 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
