[2026:RJ-JP:1190]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6575/2014 Prahlad Singh Shekhawat Son of ShriMohan Singh, aged about 52 years, resident of Green Park, Plot No.132, Near Jagdamba School, Nangal Jaisavohra, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Aagar, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Khandelwal, Adv.

Mr. Vishvesh Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. L. Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

12/01/2026

1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 12.03.2009, whereby benefits of second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service have been granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 11.11.2008, the petitioner has filed the instant petition with the contention that the petitioner has actually completed 18 years of service as on 11.11.2004, therefore, there is no justified reason for deferring the benefits for further four years.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during service, on account of disciplinary proceedings monetary penalty/fine has been imposed upon the petitioner on four different occasions. Vide order dated 18.02.2002, apart from awarding punishment of censure, monetary penalty of Rs.700/-

was imposed upon the petitioner. Whereas vide order dated 28.12.2002 fine of Rs.3000/- was imposed upon him as well as forfeiture of benefits of suspension period except the subsistence allowance. Thereafter, again on account of some delinquency punishment of Rs.1274/- was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 25.02.2004 and vide order dated 01.07.2004 monetary fine of Rs. 3710/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the procedure earlier prevailing in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, monetary fines/penalties were not considered as bar in granting benefit of selection grade, however, it was only vide order dated 21.05.2004, first time such provision has been made whereby even in the cases where in disciplinary proceedings monetary penalty has been imposed, the benefit of selection grade was to be deferred. Learned counsel submits that in the case of the petitioner, 3 monetary penalties were of the period earlier to issuing such office order dated 21.05.2004 and only in one case, such penalty has been awarded subsequent to order dated 21.05.2004. Therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of deferring the benefit of selection grade for 4 years in view of four different monetary penalties, it could have been deferred only for one year but the respondents have committed serious illegality in deferring such benefit for 4 years 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ has been issued by the competent authority in accordance with the prevailing rules and instructions and there is no illegality in the same.

5. Heard and considered.

6. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner became eligible for claiming benefit of second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service only on 11.11.2004. It has also not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the 4 monetary penalties/censure have been awarded to the petitioner prior to acquiring date of eligibility by the petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, merely on account of the fact that 3 penalties were awarded prior to enforcement of new procedure vide order dated 21.05.2004, the respondents were not precluded from considering the same. It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility is to be seen for the purpose of selection grade when a person complete the service of 9 and 18 years of service as the case may be. In the instant case, since before the date of completion of 18 years of service, the petitioner was having 4 penalties in his service record, the respondents ha