[2025:RJ-JP:17741] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14266/2013 Dal Chand Son Of Shri Jhuntha Ram, L.d.c., Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, P.no. 14, Rajmal Ka Talab, Joshi Colony, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Jaipur 2. The Commissioner Karmik, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Jain on behalf of Mr. Nalin G. Narain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/04/2025 1. Petitioner was initially engaged in respondent-corporation on 13.05.1986. He has stated that his services were terminated w.e.f. 30.04.1987. Against the termination, he raised industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the learned Labour Court, Jaipur for adjudication. The learned Labour Court answered the reference in favour of petitioner-workman observing that termination of the petitioner from w.e.f. 30.04.1987 was illegal and hence directions for reinstatement along with continuity in service were given. 2. Petitioner states that pursuant to directions given by learned Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 31.05.1995 and thereafter he was given regular benefits for the post of L.D.C. in the prescribed pay scale w.e.f. 14.08.1995. [2025:RJ-JP:17741] (2 of 3) [CW-14266/2013] 3. Petitioner has further stated that pursuant to the scheme of grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service, First selection date was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.2004 and second selection date was sanctioned to him w.e.f. 31.03.2013 treating his date of regular appointment as 31.03.1995. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that instead of computing the length of service of the petitioner from the date of initial engagement from 13.05.1986, the respondents are counting his services from the year 1995, which is causing serious prejudice, miscarriage of justice and financial loss to the petitioner. He has prayed for revising the benefits of selection grade by computing his services w.e.f. 13.05.1986. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition on the ground that as per circular dated 25.01.1992 and subsequent circulars issued by the State Government for the purpose of grant of selection scale, period of service of 9, 18 & 27 years is to be counted from the date of regularization or regular appointment. In the instant case although the learned Labour Court in its award has directed for reinstatement of the petitioner along with continuity, however no benefit of regularization was given. 6. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the respondents that services of the petitioner have been regularized w.e.f. 31.03.1995 by placing him in the regular pay scale and therefore, the respondents have rightly granted him benefit of selection scale by computing his length of service for the purpose [2025:RJ-JP:17741] (3 of 3) [CW-14266/2013] of grant of selection scale w.e.f 31.03.1995. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the record. 8. Issue in hand is no longer res integra. It has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi: 2009 12 SCC 49 that for the purpose of grant of selection scale, only the service rendered by the employee after his regular appointment or regularization can be taken into account. Hence in the instant case, services rendered by the petitioner prior to his regular appointment is not liable to be taken into consideration for granting selection grade to the petitioner. 9. In view of above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. 10. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J MAHIMA/206