[2025:RJ-JP:31148] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5303/2009 1. Bhagwan Singh Rajput S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, aged about 57, years, R/o Village- Harsoli, Tehsil- Samer, Via-Kishangarh Renwal, Dist.- Jaipur. (Deceased) 1/1. Gajraj Kanwar W/o Bhagwan Singh, Caste Rajput, aged 59 years, R/o209, Shiv Mandir, Harsoli, Tehsil- Phulera-Jaipur. 1/2. Mahaveer Singh Shekhawat, S/o Bhagwan Singh, Caste Rajput, aged 33years, R/o 221, Rajput Mohalla, Near Shiv Mandir, Harsoli, Tehsil- Phulera-Jaipur. 1/3. Balveer Singh, S/o Bhagwan Singh, Caste Rajput, aged 37 years. R/o 365, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ward No. 20, Jaipur. 1/4. Kiran Kanwar D/o Bhagwan Singh, Caste Rajput, Nathi ka Baas, Renwal, Dist- Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur through General Manager (Administration), Krishi Bhawan Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Muskan Verma with Mr. Siddharth Sogani on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Surana For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Paliwal on behalf of Mr. R.K. Katta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 11/08/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with following prayers:- "(i) That the entire record pertaining to this case may kindly be recalled. (ii) By an appropriate interim order or direction the Petitioner be granted selection scale of 9, [2025:RJ-JP:31148] (2 of 4) [CW-5303/2009] 18, 27 years of service from initial date of appointment i.e. 6.12.1978. (iii) By an appropriate interim order or direction, forfeiture of the Petitioner's service of 14 years may kindly be declared illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and unconstitutional subsequently the order dated 05.12.2007 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iv) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the entire arrear of salary after calculating and granting selection scale on completion of 9, 18, 27 years of service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 6.12.1978 be given to the petitioner with interest of the rate of 18% per annum. (v) By an appropriate writ order or direction the cost of the litigation also be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (vi) By an appropriate writ order or direction any other appropriate relief to which the petitioners is found entitled to may also kindly be granted in his favour." 2. The petitioner has obviously prayed for a direction to grant benefit of selection grade by computing his services on 06.12.1978 and has also challenged alleged order dated 05.12.2007 whereby, his services prior to the year 1992 havebeen forfeited. 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that vide order dated 09.12.1997 (Annex.- R/3) pursuant to departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner on account of willful absence, penalty order was passed whereby, services rendered by the petitioner prior to 04.08.1992 have been forfeited. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid order dated 09.12.1997 has never been challenged by the petitioner. In absence of such challenge, more particularly when the services prior to 04.08.1992 have already been forfeited, no benefit of selection grade by computing services of petitioner from the year 1978 can be granted to him. [2025:RJ-JP:31148] (3 of 4) [CW-5303/2009] 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 5. It is apparent from the record that earlier one charge- sheet dated 20.12.1996 was issued to the petitioner for remaining willfully absent from 04.08.1992 to 27.08.1995. Pursuant to aforesaid charge-sheet, inquiry was conducted and the petitioner has also participated in the inquiry proceedings and produced the evidence also. After inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report dated 09.09.1997 holding the petitioner guilty for willful absence. Such report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 09.12.1997 has passed order of penalty directing forfeiture of services of the petitioner prior to 04.08.1992. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that he has ever challenged such penalty order. 6. In the writ petition Annex.-4 has been filed by the petitioner which is neither an order nor a proper document and it appears to be photocopy of something written with regard to forfeiture of earlier services. By no stretch of imagination, such document can be said to be an order, in turn giving any cause of action to the petitioner to assail the penalty order dated 09.12.1997 (Annex.-R/3). 7. It is also clear that the petitioner has deliberately and consciously concealed the fact with regard to penalty order dated 09.12.1997 and has come before the Court with incomplete, discorded and misleading facts. [2025:RJ-JP:31148] (4 of 4) [CW-5303/2009] 8. In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /34