[2025:RJ-JP:31568] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1697/2005 Ram Karan Sharma S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Sharma, aged about 54 years, R/o Plot No.98, Barodia Basti, Station Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Finance (Exp.III) Deptt., Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Secretary, Irrigation, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. The Dy. Director (Hydrology), Irrigation Deptt., Sichai Bhawan, Jaipur. 5. Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur through its Registrar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/08/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:- "(i) By issuing an appropriate Writ, order or direction the record pertaining to the case of the petitioner may kindły be summoned from the respondents. (ii) By issuing an appropriate Writ, order or direction the orders issued by the Respondent No.1 dated 16.4.94 be declared ultra virės to the extent of non inclusion of the post of Supervisor (Laboratory). (iii) By issuing an appropriate Writ, order or direction the order dated 31.12.97 pasred by the Respondent No.1 also be declared to be ultravires. There is no revision of pay scales for the persons who are getting the pay scalee of 1050-1800. [2025:RJ-JP:31568] (2 of 4) [CW-1697/2005] (iv) By issuing an appropriate Writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to give the petitioner the pay scale 1400-2600 during the period from 1.9.88 to 16.3.98 alongwith interest on the arrears from the due date. (v) By issuing an appropriate Writ, order or direction the order of Service Tribunal dated 4.2.2003 be quashed and set aside. (vi) Or any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Relevant facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Gauge Reader on 08.07.1967 on work charge basis and was later on promoted on the post of Laboratory Assistant on 01.01.1971 and subsequently on the post of Supervisor (Laboratory) with effect from 05.01.1985. While holding the post of Supervisor (Laboratory), he sought voluntary retirement which was granted to him on 11.01.2001. 3. Grievance raised by the petitioner is that since he was holding the post of Supervisor (Laboratory) therefore, he was entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1400-1700 but instead thereof a lower pay scale of Rs.1200-2050, which is meant for the Laboratory Assistant of was given to him. The petitioner also approached Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur wherein, by way of filing appeal No.3598/1999, he prayed for grant him pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 along with all consequential benefits, however, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2003. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under the Rules, there is discrepancy as same pay scale has been prescribed for Supervisor (Laboratory) and Supervisor whereas, there should have been different pay scales and only on [2025:RJ-JP:31568] (3 of 4) [CW-1697/2005] account of such analomy, the petitioner was paid lower pay scale. It has been admitted that the position of the pay scale has been prescribed in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, however, such Rules have not been challenged by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also indicated that even the pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 was given to the petitioner as per option submitted by him on 05.03.1998. After submitting option, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise grievance contrary to his own option. Learned counsel further submits that the pay of the employees is fixed as per Revised Pay Scale Rules and in the case of the petitioner also, action has been taken by the respondent-Department strictly in accordance with Rules. Hence, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where it has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that his pay was fixed in accordance with pay scale prescribed under the relevant Rules and the fact of submitting option of such pay scale was also not disputed, as well as the relevant revised pay scale rules have also never been put to challenge by the petitioner, relief as prayed in the instant writ petition cannot be granted contrary to the Rules. 8. I have examined the order dated 04.02.2003 passed by the learned Tribunal and find that after examining the position of the Rules, appeal has rightly been rejected. The petitioner has [2025:RJ-JP:31568] (4 of 4) [CW-1697/2005] utterly failed to point out any material illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. 9. Under these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /73