[2025:RJ-JP:6701] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 823/2025 Raj Bihari Mittal S/o Late Shri Mahadev Prasad Mittal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 73/303-A, Near Tagore Hospital, Mansarovar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Head Of The Forest Force- Hoff), Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jaipur. 3. Priya Ranjan, Chief Conservator Of Forest At Present Posted As Joint Secretary, Department Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare, Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 14/02/2025 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby, the petitioner has challenged the down-gradation of his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2019-20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also submitted a representation raising his grievances before the respondents however, no heed is paid qua the same. [2025:RJ-JP:6701] (2 of 5) [CW-823/2025] 2. Further, it is submitted that the said action of the respondents was carried out during the tenure of one particular Officer, who is impleaded in the petition as respondent No. 3. 3. In this background, it is prayed that said APAR to the same extent be set aside and quashed. Additionally directions may be given to the respondents to not pass any adverse orders/ take any adverse action against the petitioner. Nonetheless, as on date the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. 4. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in DBCWP No. 1998/1988 titled as Tayyab Ali Vs. State of Raj. decided on 22.09.1988, more specifically upon paragraph no. 13 and it is submitted that against the same, appeal filed before the learned RAT is not maintainable. Relevant part of the above relied judgment is reproduced herein below:- “13. We are therefore, of the opinion that an adverse entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report or any order rejecting representation against the same is not included within the ambit of Sub-clause (v) of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act; and therefore, an appeal to the Tribunal merely against such an adverse entry or an order rejecting the representation against the same does not lie under the Act. We are also of the opinion that even though such an adverse entry or an order rejecting the representation against the same by itself is not appealable to the Tribunal as already stated, yet the correctness thereof can be assailed by the Government Servant while challenging any consequent order based on or influenced by it relating, to any of the matters specified in the several sub-clauses of Clause (f) of Section 2; and in that event the limitation for appeal to the Tribunal will be reckoned from the date of the consequent order and not the date of the adverse entry or the order [2025:RJ-JP:6701] (3 of 5) [CW-823/2025] rejecting the representation against it. We answer the above quoted question accordingly.” 5. Heard and considered. 6. At the outset, this Court prior to adjudication of the instant matter deems it appropriate to peruse the preamble, objective and relied upon definitions of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act of 1976’), which is reproduced herein below: “An Act to provide for the constitution of Appellate Tribunals for the service matters and matters incidental thereto.” “2 Definitions:-- ……… (a) "Civil Services" means the Civil Services of the State of Rajasthan and such other services as the State Government may notify in the official Gazette from time to time, but shall not include- (i) The members of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and Rajasthan Judicial Service; (ii) Employees of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan; (iii) Employees of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat Staff; and (iv) Employees of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission; (b) "Government" means the State Government; (c) "Government Servant" means a person who is or has been a member of a Civil Service or who holds or has held a Civil post under the Government of Rajasthan and includes any such person on foreign Service or whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of a local or other authority and also any person in the service of a local or other authority whose services have been temporarily placed at the disposal of the State Government or a person in service on a contract or a person who has retired from the Government service elsewhere and is re- employed under the Government of Rajasthan, but does not include a person in the Civil Service of the Indian Union or a State Government serving on [2025:RJ-JP:6701] (4 of 5) [CW-823/2025] deputation in Rajasthan who will continue to be governed by the rules applicable to such person; ………. 2(f) "Service matter" means any one or more than one of the following matters relating to a Government Servant:- (i) Seniority; (ii) Promotion; (iii) Confirmation; (iv) Fixation of pay; (v) An order denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government Servant, other-wise than as a penalty; (vi) Cases of reversion while officiating in a higher service, grade or post to lower service, grade or post other-wise than as a penalty; (vii) Withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension other-wise than as the penalty; (viii) Any other matter notified by the Government. 7. Considering the nature of the lis before this Court and the provisions reproduced herein above, it can be deduced that the APAR falls under the definition of ‘service matter’ and matter incidental thereto. The point of adjudication in the judgment referred above matter pertains to Section 2(f)(v) of the Act of 1976, which defines ‘service matter’ pertaining to an order denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government Servant, other- wise than a penalty. 8. Full Bench while considering the same has held that to approach the learned RAT the requisite condition is the consequential effect of APAR to fall under the said clause. On liberal reading of the preamble of the Act and the definitions reproduced above, it is evident that any ‘Government Servant’ who is retired can file an appeal before RAT and will not be limited to Section 2(f)(v). However, the stage of approaching the learned [2025:RJ-JP:6701] (5 of 5) [CW-823/2025] RAT will be when the actual cause of action arises, and when a concurrent adverse order is into effect. 9. Howsoever, considering the matter in hand, and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is superannuated as on date and is suffering from a stigma, it is directed that no further order will be passed in future. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the instant matter, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the learned RAT who will decide the claim of the petitioner qua limitation and merits etc., strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously. 10. In light of the above, the present petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned directions. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/406