Road, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawaimadhopur vs Rajasthan High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Through

Judgment

1. Rajasthan High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Through

3. Its Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur District Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur Addl. District and Session Judge, Gangapur City, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Ms. Naina Saraf For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Pratap Singh Mr Ajay Singh Rajawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “i. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the petitioner may be declared regular on the post of LDC w.e.f. 3.05.01 i.e. date of initial appointment. ii. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the petitioner may be granted the regular pay scale of LDC from the date of initial i.e. 3.5.01 appointment. iii. That by an appropriate writ or order, the impugned order dated 16.7.10 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent may be directed to pay the petitioner regular pay scale of LDC, yearly increment and all other such benefit which are granted to the other LDC appointed before or after petitioner along with 18% interest. [2025:RJ-JP:10871] (2 of 6) [CW-3479/2011] iv. That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent be directed to grant petitioner selection grade on completion of 9 years of service with 18% interest as delay payment till the date of actual payment. v. Any other other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to appoint him on regular basis on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) w.e.f. 03.05.2001 i.e. from the initial date of his appointment and grant him regular pay scale from the said date.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on 03.05.2001 after death of his father and his services were terminated by the respondents on

01.08.2001. The aforesaid action of the respondents was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. CWP No. 4183/2001 wherein an interim order was passed and the petitioner was allowed to continue on the said post. Counsel submits that finally the said writ petition was allowed on

15.12.2008 and the removal/termination order dated 01.08.2001 was quashed and set aside. Counsel submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was reinstated in service on

16.03.2009 and thereafter, his typing test was conducted on

16.05.2009 wherein the petitioner remained unsuccessful and in second chance, the petitioner qualified the requisite typing test on

30.06.2010. Counsel submits that the respondents were supposed to conduct typing test within a period of three years from the date of his appointment and if no such typing test was conducted by [2025:RJ-JP:10871] (3 of 6) [CW-3479/2011] the respondents, the petitioner cannot be blamed. Counsel submits that as per the mandate contained under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of the Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services from the initial date of his appointment, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that appointment of the petitioner was not proper and that is why his services were terminated vide order dated 01.08.2001. Counsel submits that though the writ petition submitted by the petitioner before this Court was pending, wherein an interim order was passed by which the petitioner was allowed to continue in service, the said order was made subject to the outcome of the aforesaid writ petition, hence under these circumstances, there was no reason or occasion available with the respondents to conduct the typing test of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the said writ petition submitted by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2008 and immediately thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in service on 16.03.2009 and thereafter, his typing test was conducted on 16.05.2009 wherein the petitioner remained unsuccessful. Counsel submits that as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioner was supposed to pass the requisite typing test in first chance but again a second chance was provided to him on 30.06.2010 and this time, the petitioner passed the typing test and accordingly, his services were confirmed and actual benefits were granted to the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:10871] (4 of 6) [CW-3479/2011] from the date of passing the typing test and notional benefits were granted from the date of his appointment, hence under these circumstances, the respondents have not caused any illegality in doing so, thus, interference of this Court is not warranted.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. This fact is not in dispute that compassionate appointment was granted to the petitioner on 03.05.2001. This fact is also not in dispute that a condition was imposed in the appointment order itself that he was supposed to pass the typing test in first chance and benefits would be granted to him only after passing the typing test. It appears that the appointment order of the petitioner was not found to be proper by the respondents, hence, a decision was taken to terminate his services on 01.08.2001. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing SBCWP No. 4183/2001 wherein an interim order was passed and the petitioner was allowed to continue in service and the matter remained pending before this Court till 15.12.2008 and finally the said writ petition was allowed on 15.12.2008 and the termination order dated 01.08.2001 was quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner and in consequence thereof, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 16.03.2009 and thereafter, his typing test was conducted on 16.05.2009 wherein the petitioner failed to pass the typing test. However, a sympathetic view was taken in favour of the petitioner and a second chance was provided to him on

30.06.2010 to appear in the typing test which he qualified. [2025:RJ-JP:10871] (5 of 6) [CW-3479/2011]

7. Now the question which remains for consideration before this Court is “whether the petitioner is entitled to get regularization of his service from the date of his initial appointment or from the date of passing the typing test?

8. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioner would be entitled to get regularization in service from the date of passing of the typing test in first chance. The opportunity to appear in the typing test as first chance was not given to the petitioner as prior to that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 01.08.2001 and the said order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing a writ petition and the said writ petition was allowed and thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 16.03.2009 and immediately thereafter, he was provided one chance to appear in the typing test on 16.05.2009 but he could not qualify the same and remained unsuccessful, however, he passed the typing test in second chance provided to him on 30.06.2010. The petitioner can take the benefit of interim order passed in his favour because the same was made subject to outcome of the writ petition. Unless and until the writ petition submitted by the petitioner was decided by this Court, there was no reason or occasion available with the respondents to conduct his typing test. The moment when his writ petition was allowed on 15.12.2008, he was reinstated in service on 16.03.2009 and immediately thereafter his typing test was conducted and the petitioner passed the typing test in second chance and the respondents have granted the actual benefit of regularization from the date of passing the typing test by the petitioner and the notional benefits were granted to him from the [2025:RJ-JP:10871] (6 of 6) [CW-3479/2011] date of his appointment. The respondents have not caused any illegality in passing the impugned order, which warrants any interference of this Court.

9. The present writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly.

10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. Ashu/92 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J