[2025:RJ-JP:29794-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 604/2021 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Law And Legal Affairs Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Special Secretary Law (Litigation), Law And Legal Affairs Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Appellants Versus Pradeep Kumar Son Of Late Shri Chandrapal Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Gahanpal Bagachi Wali Gali, Katara, Nadbai, District- Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Adv., (AAG) with Mr. Jay Vardhan Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gadhwal, through VC with Mr. Sushil Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/08/2025 Instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants against the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner- respondent was allowed. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Senior Counsel (Additional Advocate General) appearing on behalf of the State submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the institute whereby the petitioner-respondent acquired the qualification, was not recognized. He further submits that the recovery, as ordered by the Department has not been effected due to interim orders [2025:RJ-JP:29794-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-604/2021] passed by the learned Single Judge and further prayed for allowing the appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single judge after considering Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short “Rules of 1996”) allowed the writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner has also acquired the required additional qualification as desired by the Department in the year 2017 and if any excess payment has been made to the petitioner, for that the petitioner has no fault and he has not concealed anything in the Department while submitting the application form for appointment under the Rules of 1996. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition observed as under in paras No.7, 11, 12, 13:- “7. On the basis thereto, counsel states that it has also been informed that the said Rule 9 was further amended vide Notification dated 2.1.2017 as under:- “9. Procedural requirement etc.- The procedural requirement for selection such as:- (i) computer qualification shall not be insisted upon at the time of appointment. The dependants of the deceased Government Servant shall have to possess any of the computer qualification as prescribed in the relevant rules within the period of probation, failing which his/her probation shall be deemed to be extended, unless the appointing authority terminates his/her services finding the performance wholly unsatisfactory. (ii) training of departmental examination or [2025:RJ-JP:29794-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-604/2021] typing on computer shall not be insisted upon at the time of appointment. The dependants shall however, be required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test on computer in any one language, either in English or in Hindi, within a period of three years, unless the period is relaxed by Department of Personnel, for entitlement for confirmation, failing which his/her appointment shall be liable to be terminated. No annual grade increments will be allowed until he/she acquires such qualification. On acquiring such qualification, annual grade increments shall be allowed notionally from the date of appointment but no arrears shall be paid: Provided that the widow appointed under the provisions of these rules shall be exempted from having computer qualification and passing the typing test on computer. Provided further that the persons with disabilities appointed under the provisions of these rules shall be exempted from passing the typing test on computer.” 11. The Rules as quoted above, show that the petitioner possesses computer qualification which is diploma in Computer Application which is an alternate qualification to RSCIT and therefore, there can be no exception to the original order passed confirming the petitioner on completion of two years of probation and granting him regular pay scale. 12. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 as quoted above depicts that if a person subsequently also acquires a qualification, his annual grade increment shall be allowed notionally from the original date therefore, the pay scale could not have been shifted to 2017. 13. On both aspects, therefore, annual increments have to be granted from the initial date of appointment. However, in this regard, in the latter situation, the fixation would be notional till the date of acquiring the qualification.” We are of the considered view that the petitioner was not at fault and has not concealed anything from the Department while [2025:RJ-JP:29794-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-604/2021] submitting the application form, therefore, no recovery of excess payment can be made from the petitioner and the learned Single Judge after considering the Rules of 1996, has rightly allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-respondent. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court, hence, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellants is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /56