[2025:RJ-JP:34655] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6808/2003 1. Guru Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Prakash Chand Sharma, R/o Ward No.9, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 2. Ram Kishan Rao S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Rao, aged 37 years, R/o Khetri Mod, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 3. Dilip Kumar Tiwari S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Tiwari, aged 40 years, R/o Purani Mandi, Bhudoli Road, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 4. Satveer Singh Yadav S/o Shri Sohan Lal Yadav, aged 40 years, R/o Jhajhonwala Ki Dhani, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 5. Brij Kishore Meena S/o Sh. Dhansi Ram, aged 28 years, R/o Ballupura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Education, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Director, Education, Primary & Middle, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The District Education Officer (Chhatra Sansthan), Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.K. Sharma, AGC Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/08/2025 1. The petitioners have approached this Court invoking its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: i.) by issuance of suitable writ, direction or order the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give the similar pay scale of Rs.4,500/- to Rs.7,000/- to the petitioners of the teacher grade-III from July, 1998 with all consequential benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:34655] (2 of 4) [CW-6808/2003] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed as Laboratory Assistants by respondent no. 3 as mentioned below: Name Order dated Guru Dutt (Petitioner 1) 27.01.1993 Ram Kishan Rao (Petitioner 2), Satveer Singh Yadav (Petitioner 4) and Brij Kishore Meena (Petitioner 5) 27.03.1992 Dilip Kumar Tiwari (Petitioner 3) 30.06.1995 3. Subsequently, vide order dated 16.10.1997, the petitioners were declared surplus and absorbed into the post of Teacher Grade-III, performing duties similar to those of the teachers. However, the pay scale for Teacher Grade-III was revised in July 1998 from Rs. 4,000-6,000 to Rs. 4,500-7,000. The learned counsel contended that the respondents have extended the benefit of the revised pay scale only to those employees who were initially appointed to the post of Teacher Grade-III, thereby unjustly excluding those, like the petitioners, who were absorbed from the position of Laboratory Assistants. Therefore, the relief prayed for in the writ petition may kindly be granted and the respondents may be directed to give the similar pay scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000/- to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that as per the clarification issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan vide notification dated 07.08.1998, the Laboratory Assistants who did not have the requisite qualification of training of S.T.C. or B.Ed, [2025:RJ-JP:34655] (3 of 4) [CW-6808/2003] would get the pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000 till attaining the required qualification. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.4,500-7000 as they have not attained the requisite qualifications. Therefore, the present writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 6. From the bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners, initially appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistants, were absorbed into the posts of Teacher Grade-III. However, the notification dated 07.08.1998 issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan clearly mandated that the Laboratory Assistants who did not possess the qualifications of training of S.T.C. or B.Ed would not be entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000 till attaining the qualification of training of S.T.C. or B.Ed. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners neither filed a rejoinder to the contentions raised by the respondents with regard to the possession of requisite qualifications by the petitioners in the reply to the writ petition nor assailed the validity of the notification dated 07.08.1998. 8. Since it is an admitted position that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification of training of S.T.C. or B.Ed., as mandated by the Notification dated 07.08.1998, thus, their claim for the revised pay scale cannot be accepted. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be held entitled to the grant of revised pay scale as claimed. [2025:RJ-JP:34655] (4 of 4) [CW-6808/2003] 9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 11. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-27