Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12035
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Anand Sharma, J
ASHOK GODARA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7660/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.R. Godara
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG Mr. Bhupesh Charan for Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C.
A candidate selected in a recruitment process is entitled to notional pay fixation from the date similarly situated candidates were appointed if the delay in their appointment is solely attributable to the respondents and not the candidate.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Notional Benefit - Delay in appointment solely attributable to the employer - Where a candidate is selected in the same recruitment process but appointed later without justified reason, they are entitled to notional pay fixation from the date similarly situated persons were appointed. (Para 8, 11)
(B) Administrative Action - Representation - Rejection on irrelevant grounds - Dismissing a claim for notional pay fixation based on inter-district transfer when the petitioner is not claiming notional seniority is unjustified and arbitrary. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to notional pay fixation from the date other similarly situated candidates were appointed despite a delay in his own appointment order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks notional pay fixation due to administrative delay in appointment despite selection in the 2008 recruitment process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the distinction between notional seniority and notional pay fixation and reliance on coordinate bench precedents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. delay in appointment solely attributable to the employer entitles the candidate to notional pay fixation parity with similarly situated persons. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. quashing of the order rejecting the representation and granting notional pay fixation from 13.01.2012 without actual monetary benefits. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
Order
1. Petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayers :
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:-
A) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to the impugned letter/communication dated 10.10.2023 (Annex.9) deserves to be quashed and set aside.
B) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to the Give/provide all notional, pay fixation as per Notional Joining, actual benefit and increment in pursuance of the advertisement year, 2008 to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give/provide the benefit of increment and made fixation of payment and ACP of the petitioner in the pursuance of the advertisement year, 2008.
C) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the entire benefits including the prevailing interest to the petitioner as per the Hon'ble High Court orders.
D) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
E) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs”
2. It is stated that petitioner participated in the recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as ‘RPSC’) for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-II. After undergoing the entire process under Rules, the petitioner was selected at merit No.901 for the post of Senior Teacher (Science). The persons who were selected with the petitioner were appointed vide order dated 13.01.2012, whereas, appointment was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.01.2012. It is submitted that the delay in appointment was solely attributed to the respondents and petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the delay caused by the respondents in appointing the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that under these circumstances, as the petitioner was also selected for the same recruitment process, therefore, was entitled for benefit of notional pay fixation qua the other similarly situated persons, who were given appointment earlier to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel submits that earlier also petitioner filed S.B.C.W.P. No.7010/2019 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2025 by giving direction to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority, which was to be decided by the respondents as per law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in this regard has also been decided by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.; S.B.C.W.P. No.7283/2014, decided on 16.07.2014 at Jaipur Bench and in the case of Krishan Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.; S.B.C.W.P. No.19179/2017, decided on 30.10.2017 at Jaipur Bench. Learned counsel submits that representation submitted by the petitioner in compliance of order dated 25.01.2021 has been dismissed by the Joint Director, School Education, Bikaner Region, Bikaner by giving quite mechanical reasons that as the petitioner was pe
