##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10096/2011

Gajendra Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

State Forest Dep And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Dutt Sharma

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy.G.C

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

28/01/2026

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is

claiming regularization on the post of Laboratory Assistant and

submits that although, he was appointed on 12.03.1981 and after

rendering services of almost 37 years, on attaining the age of

superannuation, has also retired yet, despite rendering services

for more than 37 years, his services were not regularized, which

has caused him grave prejudice in the manner that neither his pay

was fixed in regular pay scale nor was he granted any benefits of

selection grade etc. Consequently, after retirement, he is getting

minimum pension permissible for the Government servant.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents objected to the

claim raised by the petitioner mainly on two grounds; First, the

petitioner was not having a requisite qualification of higher

secondary in Science stream and second, as per Rule 6(4) of

Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, for the purpose

of regularization, an incumbent must have completed six months’

services as on 01.04.1981. He submits that the petitioner does

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 10:06:28 AM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:58:28 AM)

(2 of 3) [CW-10096/2011]

not fulfill the criteria for the reason that as on 01.04.1981, his

services were only of hardly 18 days.

3. Thereupon, learned counsel for the petitioner has

clarified by indicating order dated 16.02.1990 that Mr. Dharamdutt

Tyagi whose education qualification was secondary from Arts

stream, Bhoop Singh Yadav, High School from Arts stream,

Jagdeesh Prasad from Arts stream and so many others have also

been granted benefit of regularization despite, they were not

possessing any qualification from Science stream. He submits that

assuming for a moment that, the petitioner did not complete six

months’ service as on 01.04.1981, even then, in compliance of

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1

the State Government had issued notification dated 08.07.2009

for the purpose of regularizing the services of those employees

who were initially appointed on ad hoc / irregular basis yet he had

completed more than 10 years of services. Still, the petitioner was

not considered for regularization.

4. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India

(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar

Nigam Ghaziabad, (2025) SCC OnLine 221 & Dharam Singh

& Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.8558/2018,

decided on 19.08.2025), in support of his contention that

hyper-technical objections should not be raised in order to deny

benefit of regularization to the employees who have rendered their

services for decades to the Department.

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 10:06:28 AM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:58:28 AM)

(3 of 3) [CW-10096/2011]

6. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to

seek instructions in this regard and to file an additional affidavit

for clarifying the points raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

7. Time prayed for learned counsel for the respondents is

allowed.

8. List this matter on 17^th February, 2026.

9. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be

granted.

(ANAND SHARMA),J

NEERU/49

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 10:06:28 AM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:58:28 AM)