[2025:RJ-JP:8518-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 501/2023 1. Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur Through Secretary. 2. General Manager, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Vimal Kumar (Since Deceased), Son Of K. B. Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of 9/120, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Smt. Sushma Sharma W/o Late Shri Vimal Kumar, R/o 9/120, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, (Rajasthan) 3. Ms. Kriti Sharma D/o Late Shri Vimal Kumar, R/o 9/120, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, (Rajasthan). 4. Mr. Parth Sharma S/o Late Shri Vimal Kumar, R/o 9/120, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Paliwal on behalf of Mr. R.A. Katta For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Tomar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 25/02/2025 This appeal has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter to be referred as "Employer") challenging the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11695/2021, which reads as under:- "I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. This Court finds that in the earlier round of litigation, while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court [2025:RJ-JP:8518-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-501/2023] had directed the respondent Board to give appointment to the petitioner and his appointment was to be as per the judgment passed by this Court earlier on 04th December, 1985, whereby two other persons, namely, Uma Mathur and Radhey Shyam were given appointment and as such, this Court directed that case of the petitioner was also required to be considered and the same benefits were to be given. This Court further finds that after the decision, passed by the Single Bench, special appeal was filed by the respondent Board and the same appeal came to be dismissed. This Court finds that the respondents issued an order on 12th September, 1997, whereby they appointed the petitioner and gave him seniority w.e.f. 1980. This Court further finds that the respondents did not grant actual benefits to the petitioner, as was directed by this Court but the notional benefits were given to him by fixing him in the pay scale and actual benefit was granted to the petitioner from 25th July, 1992. The issue, before this Court, is in respect of counting services, rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1980 or from later date. This Court finds that the respondents cannot take a plea now that since the petitioner was appointed after decision of Division Bench in the year 1997, his past service, which was required to be taken into account from 1980, can be denied to him. This Court further finds that the respondents themselves considered qualifying service of other similarly situated candidates from the date of their initial appointment in spite of issuance of appointment order, at later point of time, such persons have been extended benefit and as such, the respondents cannot make a discrimination in considering case of the petitioner while counting services for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that appointment order of the petitioner is to relate back as per the directions given by this Court initially and if the litigation was initiated by the respondent Board and ultimately, the [2025:RJ-JP:8518-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-501/2023] appeal, filed by the respondent Board was also dismissed, the same cannot deprive the petitioner from getting the benefit, for which, he became entitled. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that since the contribution/deduction of CPF account was made by the petitioner from 01st May, 1993 and as such, the said date is to be reckoned for the purpose of qualifying service, this Court rejects the said submission, as this Court finds that deduction of CPF account from a particular date will not deprive the petitioner, if his appointment is treated from 1980. If the employer has delayed appointment, the same should not result into putting a premium on the illegal act, which is committed by the employer. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was in fact appointed in the year 1997 and only by getting his seniority, no benefit can be claimed by him, suffice it say by this Court that if appointment of the petitioner is to relate back to the year 1980, the date for counting qualifying service cannot be shifted to the year 1993 or 1997. Accordingly, this Court finds that the issue with regard to counting of qualifying service of the other similarly situated persons has also been decided by this Court in earlier round of litigation and as such, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to count service of the petitioner from 01st April, 1980 to 30th April, 1993 for the purpose of computation of pension and other post retiral benefits and accordingly, revision in pension shall be made by the respondents by giving benefits to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This Court also directs the respondents to grant interest @ 9% per annum on the differential amount to be paid to the petitioner, as the petitioner has illegally been deprived from his rightful claim by the respondents for a considerable period." [2025:RJ-JP:8518-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-501/2023] Learned Single Judge has considered the fact that the earlier S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4951/1991 was allowed by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.1992 with the direction to the respondents (hereinafter to be referred as "Employee") for giving appointment and notional benefits to the petitioner, however, according to selection list seniority and other benefits were also allowed. Learned counsel for the employer submits that the CPF deduction of the employee was started w.e.f. 01.05.1993, therefore, the employee cannot get the benefit from the date of selection list i.e. 01.04.1980. He further submits that the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge to that extent deserves to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the employee submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted the benefit to him and given direction to the employee to count the services of the employee from 01.04.1980 to 30.04.1993 for the purpose of computation of pension and retiral benefits as the earlier writ petition was filed on this behalf to grant him all notional and seniority benefits from the date i.e. 01.04.1980. He further submits that the employer themselves have given such benefits from the initial date of selection to other similarly situated employees and therefore, the employee was also entitled to the same benefit. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have gone the through judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has observed that the employer herein themselves have given the benefit to the similarly [2025:RJ-JP:8518-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-501/2023] situated persons on counting their services from the initial date of selection and we are satisfied with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, thus, in our considered view, no case is made out for interference by this Court in this matter. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /210