[2025:RJ-JP:38683] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8100/2010 Kunj Behari Meena Son of Shri Ramdhan Meena, aged about 54 years, resident of Bahadurpur, Post Bhopur, Teshil Todabhim, District Karauli (Deceased) 1. Pushpendra Kumar Meena son of Late Shri Kunj Behari Meena, aged about 39 years, 2. Akhilesh Meena son of Late Shri Kunj Behari Meena, aged about 31 years; 3. Rajiv Meena son of Late Shri Kunj Behari Meena, aged about 37 years, 4. Meena daughter of Late Shri Kunj Behari Meena, aged about 39 years, All residents of village Bahadurpur, Post Bhopur, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Planning Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Economics and Statistics, Yojana Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. Mining Engineer, Mines Department, Karauli. ----Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashok Bansal Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Minakshi Jain Government Counsel with Ms. Supriya Rana Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 19/09/2025 1. Petitioner-Kunj Behari Meena filed instant writ petition seeking direction against the respondents to grant him benefits of [2025:RJ-JP:38683] (2 of 4) [CW-8100/2010] I/II/III selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services along with all other consquential benefits. 2. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that during pendency of writ petition, petitioner Kunj Behari Meena expired on 05.05.2021 and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 11.04.2022. 3. It is submitted that the deceased-petitioner owned to his credit qualifications of B.Sc., M.A. in Economics and he was appointed on the post of Computer vide order dated 18.05.1981 and since then, he worked continuously with the respondent- department and on attaining the age of superannuation, the deceased-petitioner was retired from service with effect from 30.06.2016. However, despite completing more than 27 years of services, the deceased-petitioner was not granted any benefit of promotion, nor selection grade. 4. Learned counsel for the deceased-petitioner relies upon Circular dated 25.01.1992 issued by the Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan revised from time to time in order to show that in the cases where an employee, working in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate cadre, despite completing 9, 18 or 27 years of services, is not granted I/II/III promotions, then he would be entitled for benefit of fixation of his pay in selection grade which shall be the grade of next promotion post. In the instant case, no such benefit was granted to the deceased- petitioner, which caused grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to him. 5. Learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that although the deceased-petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:38683] (3 of 4) [CW-8100/2010] wsa appointed on the post of Computer, yet his appointment was conditional in nature and he was required to pass departmental examination for the purpose of confirmation. Initial appointment of the deceased-petitioner was ad-hoc in nature and on account of not passing departmental examination, his services were never confirmed and he stood retired as an ad-hoc employee. Learned Government Counsel further submits that in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (2009) 12 SCC 49, benefit of selection grade can be granted only from the date of selection/regular service. In the instant case, since services of the deceased-petitioner were not confirmed, he was not entitled for the benefit of selection grade. It is also submitted that similar situated person Samandar Singh also filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5445/1999 (Samandar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) before this Court, which was dismissed on 15.03.2016. In the said case also, Samandar Singh was not granted benefit of selection grade as he could not clear departmental examination during his entire service. The claim put forward by Samander Singh was negated by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.03.2016. The case of the petitioner is also similar to that of Samandar Singh (supra). Hence, in the circumstances where the issue in hand has already been set at rest by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.03.2016, writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. [2025:RJ-JP:38683] (4 of 4) [CW-8100/2010] 7. The deceased-petitioner has utterly failed to establish that at any point of time he was granted benefit of confirmation or regularisation. It is not disputed that the deceased-petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis and he could not qualify departmental examination in his entire service career. 8. Under these circumstance and in view of order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Samander Singh (supra) where similar question has been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, no interference is required in the instant writ petition. 9. Writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. 10. All pending applications also stand dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI-JATIN /14