Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Kirti Kachhawaha, W/o. Dr. K. L. Panwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to grant her Higher Super Time Pay Scale Post with effect from 01.08.2018.
2. The petitioner also feels aggrieved against the order dated 01.08.2018, as the same has not granted the benefit of Higher Super Time Scale to the petitioner in the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee conducted for the Vacancy year 2018-2019.
3. The facts, as pleaded in the nutshell, are that the petitioner had appeared in a competitive examination conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for recruitment to the various State and subordinate Services. The petitioner participated and passed the main examination of which result was declared on 23.02.1992. The petitioner appeared in interview on 08.04.1992 and as such the dispute was raised by not accepting the preference given by the petitioner for a particular service at the time of interview.
The petitioner should be considered as appointed in 1992 for all purposes and should not be treated differently for the purpose of grant of Higher Super Time Scale.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of benefits without a hearing and the refusal to grant the petitioner the entitled higher pay scale was unjust and improper.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of benefits without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard was unjust and improper, and the petitioner's entit....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was rightly granted the Second Higher Pay Scale from 1.2.2002 based on her service history, stepping up benefits, and the re....
Employees are entitled to higher pay-scales from the date due, regardless of examination delays caused by administrative inaction.
An employee is entitled to a second higher pay-scale after 15 years of service if they remain stagnated in the same pay-scale despite receiving promotions.
The court established that delays in service-related claims do not bar relief if based on a continuing wrong, and benefits should be calculated from the date of filing the writ petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article