[2025:RJ-JP:31085] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11971/2025 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner Mandal, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 4. District Education Officer, (Secondary), District Hanumangarh. 5. Principal, Govt. Senior Sec. School, Jogiwala, Village- 11 Jgw, Block- Bhadra, District- Hanumangarh. ----Petitioners Versus Raghuveer Singh S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram, Aged About 61 Years, At Present Retired Lecturer Grade I, (History) From Govt. Senior Sec. School, Jogiwala, Village-11 Jgw, Block- Bhadra, District- Hanumangarh. Employee Id Rjha19861606184 R/o House No. 251, Ward No.3, Mohila Chauk, Bheerani, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. GC For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 11/08/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in appeal No.1949/2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded the [2025:RJ-JP:31085] (2 of 3) [CW-11971/2025] respondent with a grade pay according to the post of a Teacher as opposed to that of a Lab Assistant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was initially appointed on the post of Lab Assistant on 24.04.1986, therefore, entry grade pay is important for grant of ACP's. Since later on the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Teacher on 21.04.2016 and subsequently on the post of School Lecturer (History) on 11.09.2018 and the nature, job and qualification of the post of Lab Assistant is totally different to that of a Senior Teacher or Lecturer (History), hence, both cannot be equated. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from perversity, and prays that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 3. Heard. 4. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it is fairly demonstrated that the impugned order has been passed after due appreciation of the facts and relevant law, the learned Tribunal while considering the memorandum dated 05.07.2013 has rightly passed the impugned order while observing that once the cadre of the respondent is changed, as he was promoted to the post of Senior Teacher on 21.04.2016 and thereafter, as School Lecturer (History) on 11.09.2018. Therefore, the benefit of ACP's should be awarded accordingly. Further the learned Tribunal was guided by the principle of one post one pay, and therefore rightly held that once the cadre of the respondent was changed from a Lab Assistant to that of a Teacher, the respondent should be remunerated according to the cadre of a Teacher and accordingly granted the benefits of ACP's. [2025:RJ-JP:31085] (3 of 3) [CW-11971/2025] 5. In view of the above, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Even otherwise a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the order does not suffers from any perversity as to call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Deepa-28