SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13162

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J
Ajay Singh s/o Shri Prem Singh, aged 42 years, resident of Bada Bera, Mandore, Jodhpur – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Rules Division), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 11268/2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sher Singh Rathore for Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit
For the Respondents: Ms. Anjana Jawa, AGC

The payment of fixed remuneration to probationers is declared illegal, mandating full salary and benefits subject to Supreme Court review.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 23 and 38 - Fixed remuneration of probationers - The court held the practice of fixed remuneration without increments for probationers as illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights and declared the relevant notifications unconstitutional. (Paras 32-35)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - The court allowed the writ petition based on precedent and ordered payment of proper salary and allowances to probationers subject to the outcome of an appeal pending before the Supreme Court. (Para 35)

Order

08/07/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner`s submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in DB Civil Writ Petition No.2963/2007 (Gopal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 29th July, 2015, holding thus :

“32. In the present case, no material has been placed before us, nor any plea has been taken in the reply that the probationers, during the period of their probation, do not perform the same duties and responsibilities and are not required to carry out the same functions as confirmed employees.

33. We find the practice of payment of fixed remuneration without any allowances and benefit of increments to the probationers, who were appointed after adopting the regular selection process, on substantive posts, or even after following the selection process on ad hoc basis, as well as all those employees who are appointed on substantive posts, to be wholly illegal and arbitrary, and pernicious practice of forced labour.

34. We find no justification for the State Government, to adopt the practice of paying fixed remuneration to the probationers, which is not prevalent, either in the Central Government, or in any other States in the country. The Government of Rajasthan has adopted this evil practice of forced labour for its employees, taking advantage of the attraction of the Government service. The Notifications dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rules, are thus, declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14, 16, 21, 23 and 38 of the Constitution of India , and against the conscience of the Constitution of India .

35. The writ petition is allowed. The Notification dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and the Notification of the same date i.e. 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixed remuneration to probationer trainees, are hereby quashed. The State-respondents are directed to pay the entire differential amount of regular pay scale and allowances to the petitioner, after deducting the amount of fixed remuneration paid to him during the period of probation.”

In case, the claim of the petitioners is found to be covered by the adjudication referred to hereinabove; the petitioners be also allowed the same benefits.

Needless to observe that the rights of the parties would be governed by the final adjudication on SLP pending before the Apex Court of the land wherein judgment in the case of Gopal Kumawat (supra), is under challenge.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29th July, 2015, in the case of Gopal Kumawat (supra).

Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the period of probation; subject to adjudication on the SLP pending before the Apex Court of the land which would govern the rights of the parties.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top