[2025:RJ-JP:30349] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 38/2004 Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Gopi Lal Yadav, aged about 56 years, Compounder (Medical), Government Senior Secondary (Blind) School, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer, R/o Nasirabad, District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government, Department of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. Dy. Director (Boys), Ajmer IV District Education Officer, Secondary, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aakash Saxena on behalf of Mr. S.K. Saksena For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/08/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction against the respondents to grant pay scale No.10 of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 08.03.1982 and has further prayed for granting benefits of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989, as well as arrears of selection pay after revising the earlier benefits. Petitioner has also prayed for direction to promote him on the post of Compounder Grade-I to the next promotional post. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and has rendered services in Army Medical Corps from 15.11.1965 to 30.11.1980 and after being discharged from the Army, he applied for the post of [2025:RJ-JP:30349] (2 of 3) [CW-38/2004] Compounder in respondent-Department and was appointed vide order dated 08.03.1982. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court over one document (Annexure-4), in order to show that the pay of Compounder was to be fixed in pay scale No.10, whereas the petitioner was being paid lesser pay than admissible to the employees drawing pay scale in scale No.10. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case the right pay scale is given to the petitioner, then naturally it would attract higher benefits of selection grade and revision of pay scale as well as arrears thereof. A request for granting promotion on the higher post has also been made by highlighting the fact that since the date of appointment, no promotion was given to the petitioner. 5. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents mentioning therein that the petitioner was given right pay scale as admissible in the prevailing Rules applicable on the date of appointment of the petitioner. It has been stated that Annexure-4 is not a correct document to decide as to which pay scale shall be admissible to a particular post. Pay scales are prescribed in Revised Pay Scale Rules enacted by the State Government from time to time. Petitioner has utterly failed to show his statutory right to claim pay under higher pay scale than the pay scale earlier granted to him. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record. 7. The instant writ petition has been filed in the year 2004 to claim the benefits of alleged correct pay scale awarded to the [2025:RJ-JP:30349] (3 of 3) [CW-38/2004] petitioner in the year 1992. No justification, much less than any sufficient reason, has been given in the entire writ petition for justifying the delay of 21 years in filing the instant writ petition. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner suffers from delay and latches and is liable to be rejected only on this ground. 8. Even otherwise, if the writ petition is examined on merits, even then it would reveal that the petitioner is not claiming benefits of a particular pay scale on the basis of statutory rules and has simply relied upon one document allegedly signed by Chief Accounts Officer of Elementary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner on 24.04.1987, which admittedly does not fall within the category of any statutory document or part of Rule. Hence, there is no merit in the plea raised by the petitioner. 9. So far as the relief claimed by the petitioner with regard to promotion on the post of Compounder Grade-I to the next promotional post is concerned, no factual foundation whatsoever has been given in the entire writ petition so as to entitle the petitioner for claiming promotion. It is a settled proposition of law that promotion is not a vested right. However, consideration for promotion can be claimed that too by showing the necessary facts as well as legitimate right under the Rules. I do not find any such facts and ground in the writ petition. 10. Hence, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner, being totally misconceived, is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/25