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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 5023

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANAND SHARMA
CHITTAR LAL SUMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CW / 415 / 2007



[2026:RJ-JP:3603]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 415/2007 Chittar Lal Suman S/o Shri Heera Lal, aged about 33 years, Resident of Tancha, Tehsil Chipa Barod, Distt. Baran.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariate, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. District Probation & Social Welfare Officer, Social Welfare Department, Kota.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, Adv. for Mr. Amitosh Pareek, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

27/01/2026

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to grant him arrears in the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee w.e.f. 01.04.1994 along with interest @ 24% per annum.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Chowkidar on 05.12.1982, however, since he was not being paid salary in the pay scale otherwise admissible to a Class- IV employee, he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2671/1994, which was allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.07.1995, wherein direction was given to pay minimum of pay scale of Class-IV employee i.e. Rs.750-940 to the petitioner w.e.f.

01.04.1994. As the order dated 13.07.1995 was not complied with by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.381/1997, which was also dismissed on

24.09.1997 on account of being time barred.

3. It is stated that the petitioner served one legal notice dated 05.09.2006, however, even than the benefits were not given to him, therefore, under constraining circumstances, he filed the present writ petition for claiming benefits of regular pay scale w.e.f. 01.04.1994.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the litigation with regard to grant of regular pay scale to different sets of Class-IV employee went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and same was decided vide order dated 29.03.1996 in a batch of Special Leave Petitions led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mod Singh (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.21173/1994), where, in the aforesaid litigation the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorized the aspirants in three categories. First group comprising of those Class-IV employees, who completed five years of service in May, 1995, whereas second group was of such persons, who completed two years of service in May, 1995 and third one was the group of the persons, who have been working on 01.05.1995 and have continued to work even thereafter.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that for the purpose of regularization the Government of Rajasthan produced one scheme before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid order dated 29.03.1996. As the petitioner was falling within the group of first category i.e. persons, who completed five years of service on 01.05.1995, therefore, as per the scheme duly approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, his services were regularized w.e.f. 15.08.1996. Accordingly, order was issued on 01.04.1997. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner continued to draw the regular pay scale and other benefits attached thereto under the order dated 01.04.1997 and thereafter, he has filed the present writ petition in the year 2007. The writ petition also suffers from the vice of delay and laches apart from the fact that the prayer made by the writ petitioner is totally against the order dated 29.03.1996 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court while approving the scheme of the State Government.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in order dated 13.07.1995, there were no directions for granting benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioner from

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 Back to top