Office, Ajmer (Raj.) v. The Principal Secretary Food, Civil Supplies And

Ramesh Kumar Bishnoi S/o Shri Sujana Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o C/o V.p. Hadetar, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)

6. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p.o. Budhwaliya, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

7. Mohd. Ishtyaque Ajmeri S/o Mohd. Iqubal Ajmeri, Aged About 33 Years, Present Address Room No. 45, Office Of Manager Civil Supply, District Collectorate, Bundi (Raj.)

8. Naveen Rijhwani S/o Late Suresh Rijhwani, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 11/279, Sindhi Topdara, Ajmer (Raj.)

9. Lokesh Chandra Dwivedi S/o Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Dwivedi, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 7/240, Jankipuram Vistar, Lucknow, Uttarpradesh.

10. Hanuman Prajapat S/o Shri Raman Lal Prajapat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Sarvodya Basti, Behind Pipe Factory, Bikaner (Raj.)

11. Neetu Agarwal D/o Shri Mahesh Agarwal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 7/32, Mittal House, Mukta Prasad Colony, Bikaner (Raj.)

12. Shilpa Panwar D/o Shri Dashrath Singh Panwar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 313-A/2, Near N.p.p. School, Lohakhan, Police Line, Ajmer (Raj.)

13. Rajesh Panwar S/o Shri Pukhraj Panwar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o E-63, New Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi Jodhpur [2025:RJ-JP:33062-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-65/2020] (Raj.)

14. Naresh Meena S/o Shri Someshwar Ji Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot No. 20, 80 Feet Road, Sajjannagar, Udaipur (Raj.)

15. Lokesh Tasera S/o Shri Bansilal Tasera, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gandhi Park, Front Of Geeta Mandir, Jaipur Road, Tonk (Raj.)

16. Prateek Saraswal S/o Shri Omkarlal Saraswal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o G-116, Sector-14, Near Community Center, Udaipur (Raj.)

17. Bhavesh Detani S/o Shri Kushal Detani, Aged About 35 Years, R/o F-1, Govt. Quarter, Behind Hotel Pratap Palace, Chittorgarh (Raj.)

18. Alpi Sharma, Present Address Rajasthan State Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, District Collectorate Office, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus

1. The Principal Secretary Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs Department, State Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan State Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Having Its Office At 501, 5Th Floor, Kishan Bhawan, Near Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Manager (Administration), Rajasthan State Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 501, 5Th Floor, Kishan Bhawan, Near Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

4. Chuttan Lal Meena S/o Shri Harbhajan Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Nidhivan Nagar, Near Kiran Nursing Home, New Mandi Road, Dausa (Raj.)

5. Tulsi Khajotiya S/o Shri Gopal Khajotiya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 329, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Gopalpura Mod, Jaipur (Raj.)

6. Priyanka Saini D/o Shri Sushil Saini, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 33, Road No. 3, Behind Geejgarh House, Bais Godam, Jaipur (Raj.)

7. Monika Meena D/o Shri Bhim Singh Meena, Aged About [2025:RJ-JP:33062-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-65/2020] 33 Years, R/o Champa Devi Marg, Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)

8. Ashok Kumar Meena S/o Shri Chandra Prakash Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Gavadi, Post Kishanpura Takiya, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Raj.)

9. Anand Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Nand Kishore Rathore, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Teliwada Chowk, Bikaner (Raj.)

10. Mandeep Singh Anand S/o Shri Harminder Singh Anand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 5/50, Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner (Raj.)

11. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o V.p.o. Dholera, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mohindergarh (Haryana)

12. Sandeep Singh Bhati S/o Shri Shambhu Singh Bhati, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 464, Hanuwant-A, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari Mr. Pushpendra Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU 21/08/2025 Order

1. This is an Intra Court appeal filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 01.09.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10360/2014 and order dated 05.11.2019 dismissing the review petition (S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.270/2018).

2. The brief facts are that the appellants filed a writ petition with the following prayer:- “1. The impugned order dated 19.09.2014 (Annexure-10) may kindly be declared arbitrary [2025:RJ-JP:33062-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-65/2020] and illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rules and Circulars of the State Government dated

16.08.2011 and 11.08.2011 and accordingly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

2. By an appropriate order or direction the petitioners may be declared/treated as confirmed as per Rule 43 of the Rules of 2011 w.e.f. completion of their probation period that is from

12.1.2014 or the respondents may be directed to pass order of their confirmation with effect from completion of probation period that is from

12.1.2014 and all the consequential benefits may be and interest @ 9% per annum.”

3. The writ petition was decided on 01.09.2017 and counsels for the parties were agreed that regular pay-scale has been granted to the appellants from the date of confirmation. It was recorded that grievance regarding extension of probation and granting regular pay-scale from the date upto extension shall be governed by the final decision of pending SLP (C) No.25565/2015 preferred against the decision of this Court in Gopal Lal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in [2015 3 RLW 2469 (Rajasthan)].

4. The appellants filed the review petition raising the grievance that the issue involved in case of Gopal Lal Kumawat (supra) and the relief claimed by the petitioners are on different footing. The review petition was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the in writ the grievance was of extension of probation period in violation of Rule 40 of the Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Employees (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter [2025:RJ-JP:33062-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-65/2020] referred to as ‘Rules’), beyond two years by fourteen months. Further prayer was for grant of confirmation as per Rule 43 of the Rules and thereafter salary to be paid as per the regular pay scale. The submission is that these issues are not subject matter of pending SLP before the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Lal Kumawat (supra).

6. The State counsel submits that the extension was in accordance with the Rules. However, counsel fairly submits that the issue in the case of Gopal Lal Kumawat (supra) is not of extension of probation period beyond two years by another fourteen months.

7. The undisputed position emerges that the issue involved in the case of Gopal Lal Kumawat (supra) was not as to whether the probation period of two years under the Rules can be further extended by fourteen months.

8. The grievances raised by the appellants are not decided in the impugned order. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted for deciding the writ petition afresh in accordance with law.

9. The appeal is allowed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J DIKSHA MISHRA /20