(1 of 2)

[CW-2333/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2333/2022

Pukharam S/o Hemaram, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Plot

No.21, Ekta Nagar, Banar Road, Ramzan Ji Ka Hatha, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.

Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range (Rural),

Jodhpur

3.

Superintendent Of Police, Pali.

4.

Commandant, Police Training School, Mandore, Jodhpur.

5.

Additional Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare

Department, Collectorate Campus, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. R.C. Joshi.

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

24/02/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner essentially

aggrieved against the order dated 11.07.2000 (Annex.6), whereby

the petitioner was granted selection grade w.e.f. 16.03.2000,

wherein it has been noted that as the petitioner has been visited

with the penalty of censure, his selection grade was delayed for

years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

though the order was passed way back on 11.07.2000, the

petitioner was unaware of the same and that when he retired on

31.08.2019 and received pension less than his contemporaries, he

(2 of 2)

[CW-2333/2022]

became aware of the said aspect and obtained material and now

questioned the validity of the said order and therefore, the

respondents may be directed to grant selection grade to the

petitioner w.e.f. 1999.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner.

Admittedly, the order was passed on 11.07.2000 according

selection grade to the petitioner. The submission made that it is

only after retirement that the petitioner became aware of the

order dated 11.07.2000, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, at the

relevant time, on completion of his 18 years' of service in the year

1999, when the petitioner was not accorded the benefit of

selection grade and his contemporaries were granted the same,

the petitioner cannot possibly support the submissions sought to

be made.

No explanation worth the name has been indicated in the

petition except for claiming that the petitioner became aware of

the order only after retirement. The petition cannot be entertained

for raking up past and concluded transactions i.e. order which was

passed way back in the year 2000. The petition suffers from

explained delay and laches, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

55-Rmathur/-