HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17206/2015

Pradeep Kumar Singh s/o Late Shri Ram Lakhan Singh, R/O 435

– Katewa Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Government of

Rajasthan, Department of Personnel, Secretariat Jaipur.

2. The Advocate General, Government of Rajasthan, B Block,

High Court Campus, Jaipur.

3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Law and

Legal Affairs Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department,

Government of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. H.V. Nandwana with

Mr. Y.V. Nandwana

Mr. P.C. Sharma

Mr. Sameer Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG assisted by

Mr. Ajay Singh

Mr. Prashant Vijay on behalf of

Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy.G.C.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 23/09/2021

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 28/09/2021

1.

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for

the following reliefs:-

“(i)

release the entire pension, gratuity, leave

encashment etc. to the petitioner on the basis of last

(2 of 14)

[CW-17206/2015]

pay drawn of the post of Private Secretary alongwith

interest on delayed payment @ 18% per annum;

(ia)

quash and set aside the order dated 27.08.2016;

(ii)

make payment of arrears of DA to the petitioner

for the month of January & February, 2015;

(iii)

release payment of actual benefits of increments

for the period from 1986 to 2001 and arrears thereof

and interest thereon for the delayed payment @ 18%

per annum;

(iv)

Exemplary cost may also be imposed on the

respondents on account of harassment and mental

agony and financial distress suffered by the petitioner

after his retirement; and

(v)

pass such further order or directions in favour of

the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the present

case.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner was initially appointed on the post of L.D.C-cum-Steno

Typist in the Office of Advocate-on-Record for the State of

Rajasthan Supreme Court, New Delhi vide Government order

dated 13.09.1978. Later, the petitioner was confirmed on the post

of LDC vide Government order dated 29.04.1982. It was further

submitted that one post of Stenographer was created by the

Government of Rajasthan in the Office of Advocate-on-Record,

Supreme Court, New Delhi and after consultation with the Deputy

Secretary General Administration Department, DOP and Office

Management when none was available for appointment in the said

Office at Delhi, a decision was taken by the Law Department to

conduct a test for recruitment by inviting applications at Supreme

Court, New Delhi. In pursuance thereof, the post was notified and

applications were invited. The then Director Litigation decided to

(3 of 14)

[CW-17206/2015]

conduct the test and it was ordered that the present petitioner

may also be intimated about the same. Thereafter, the shorthand

and typing test was conducted at New Delhi on 04.11.1985,

wherein the petitioner qualified for being appointed on the post of

Stenographer Grade-II and accordingly he was appointed on ad-

hoc basis as Stenographer vide order dated 08.11.1985. It was

further submitted that subsequently vide order dated 29.04.1998,

the petitioner was regularized under the provisions of Proviso 8-A

of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Staff Rules,

1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1957”), as such his

appointment on the post of Stenographer was in accordance with

law.

4.

It was further submitted that vide order dated 27.11.1998,

the order dated 29.04.1998 was modified directing that the

petitioner would be entitled fo