[2025:RJ-JP:31230-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 781/2024 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To The Government, Department Of Elementary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Elementary Education, Directorate - Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Ajmer. 4. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti - Kishangarh (Block-Silora), District Ajmer. 5. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti - Pisangan, District Ajmer 6. Zila Parishad, Ajmer, Through Its Chief Executive Officer. ----Appellants Versus 1. Manoj Kumar Harshwal Son Of Late Shri Ghanshyam Sen, Teacher Grade-Iii, Government Upper Primary School - Tonkra, Block Silora, District Ajmer And Resident Of Pandit Fateh Lal Nagar, Near Kishangarh Public School, Mazela Road, Kishangarh, District Ajmer. 2. Rajendra Khinchi Son Of Late Shri Jodhalal Khinchi, Teacher Grade-Iii, Government Senior Secondary School - Tilora, District Ajmer And Resident Of Opposite Bank Of Baroda, Ganaheda, Pushkar, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Choudhary on behalf of Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Saksena on behalf of Mr. S.K. Saksena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 12/08/2025 Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. [2025:RJ-JP:31230-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-781/2024] The appeal is heard with the consent of both the parties and decided finally. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 17.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6868/2016, whereby, the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents-petitioners was partly allowed. Short controversy involved in this appeal is that the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition considered the fact that the respondents are entitled for benefit of annual grade increments notionally on acquiring required qualification as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as “The Rules of 1996”) for their appointments. Learned Single Judge while considering the merits of the case held as under:- The undisputed fact of this case is that both the petitioners got appointment on compassionate ground and as per the terms and conditions of their appointment orders, they were supposed to get the requisite qualification i.e. BSTC within a period of three years from the date of their appointment. This fact is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 has passed his BSTC certificate on 08.11.2004, likewise petitioner No.2 has passed the same on 21.04.2005. Now, three questions remain before this Court for adjudication of this case; first is - whether the petitioners are entitled to get notional benefit w.e.f. their initial date of appointment and second is - whether the petitioners are entitled to get study leave, and third is - whether the petitioners are entitled to get selection scale w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 is specific and clear, and for ready reference the same is quoted hereunder: [2025:RJ-JP:31230-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-781/2024] “Rule 9 (1) The procedural requirement for selection such as training or departmental examination or typing test shall not be insisted upon at the initial appointment. The dependent shall however, be required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test, within a period of 3 years 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 qualifications. On acquiring such qualifications annual grade increments shall be allowed notionally from the date of appointment but no arrears will be paid. Note :- For the purpose of this rule the Head of the Department shall conduct such test every year irrespective of the number of candidates” Perusal of Rule 9 clearly indicates that dependents of the deceased are required to clear such training or departmental examination or typing test within a period of three years for entitlement for confirmation, failing which his / her appointment shall be cancelled. The Rule is more clear that such candidates would not be entitled for annual grade increments until they acquire such qualification. The Rule further says that on acquisition of such qualification, annual grade increments shall be allowed notionally from the date of payment but no arrears would be paid. The fact is not in dispute that the petitioners were given appointment in the year 1997 and 2000 respectively and they have passed the requisite qualification in the year 2004-2005. Hence they are entitled to get their confirmation on the day they acquired the requisite qualification as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 and they are not entitled to get annual grade increments for this intervening period i.e. from their date of appointment till the date of getting the requisite qualification. The next question, whether the petitioners are entitled to get study leave or not. The controversy involved in this case has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Awadh Kumar Sharma (supra) as under: [2025:RJ-JP:31230-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-781/2024] “We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The only issue urged before us to assail the order under appeal is with regard to grant of study leave for the period spent on training. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1978 provides for recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased against an existing vacancy, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, provided the basic qualification prescribed for the post is fulfilled. Rule 8 provides for relaxation of age and other requirements. Rule 8 (2) provides for selection procedure with regard to written test, typing test or interview in order to verify the minimum standards of work and efficiency expected. The Authority was also entitled to prescribe any condition, if considered necessary, for acquiring any training or proficiency e.g. typing speed or any other qualification etc. within a reasonable period after employment. In terms of the same, the respondent was required to acquire the training qualification within a period of three years which he did successfully. The respondent was duly relieved to join the training programme without any pre-conditions. He was not required to attend the training programme without affecting discharge of duties as a Teacher. The application made by him to attend the training programme was only in accordance with the condition in his letter of appointment. The appellant was appointed as Teacher for imparting education to young impressionable minds in their formative years in Class I to V. The need for a qualified Teacher at this stage hardly needs emphasis. The appellants themselves considered it necessary that the respondent should acquire the training qualification for efficient discharge of duties within a prescribed period. In order to facilitate the same, the [2025:RJ-JP:31230-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-781/2024] appellants also relieved him for joining the training programme. The acquisition of training qualification by the respondent was undoubtedly in the larger public interest of a trained and qualified teacher available to the students at the primary level. Denial of study leave to the respondent for the period in question would be a highly anomalous position in the facts and circumstances of the case virtually penalising him for acquiring training qualifications. The submission on behalf of the appellants that the benefit was only available to widows and divorced women does not appeal to us. The appellants had essentially exercised powers under Rule 8 (2) of the Rules of 1978. The effect of relieving him to join the training programme under the terms of his appointment without any pre-conditions cannot be lost sight of. Any ambiguity that may have existed in this regard stands resolved by the subsequent Circular dated 02.02.2002 which extended the benefit of study leave also to the wards of the deceased appointed in service without any gender limitations. The Circular being procedural in nature only we see no reason why it should not be given retrospective effect. Apparently it came to be issued noticing the gender discrimination under the Rules of 1971 and to rectify the same.” Similarly in the case of Radhey Shyam (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dealt with the similar issue as under: “It is essentially submitted that the requisite benefits have been denied to the petitioner only on the ground of his having failed to acquire the qualification of BSTC within three years and such an approach of the respondents remains illegal inasmuch as he is entitled to get all the service benefits available to the post held once he has acquired the requisite qualification. [2025:RJ-JP:31230-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-781/2024] The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the other writ petitions involving similar issues have since been considered and allowed by this Court in the light of the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1899/2005 : Bhagwanti Jeengar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 04.08.2006 wherein this Court has, inter alia, held that the grant of study leave is not at all dependent on the period prescribed for acquiring the eligibility; and it has been held that there were no just and valid reason to deny study leave and other consequential benefits to the incumbents. The proposition aforesaid squarely apply to the present case too. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the orders passed in relation to the similarly placed persons; and the respondents shall, accordingly, sanction the study leave to the petitioner and make fixation of the petitioner in the revised pay scales. The petitioner shall also be entitled for getting annual grade increments in accordance with the Rules, if not otherwise disentitled.” In view of the settled proposition of law as decided by the Division Bench and co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to get study leave for a period of one year during which actually they got the training / took the studies from their respective colleges. So far as the third issue is concerned, the petitioners are not entitled to get selection scale w.e.f. initial date of their appointment for the reason that as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 their services were confirmed w.e.f. the date they acquired the requisite qualification. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of selection scale and other actual service benefits from the date of acquisition of the requisite qualification. The circular dated 02.06.2020 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the candidates would be entitled to get the benefit of all benefits w.e.f. their initial date of appointment provided they possess the requisite [2025:RJ-JP:31230-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-781/2024] qualification on the date of their appointment but here in this case the petitioners were not in possession of the requisite qualification at the time of their appointment and they acquired the same in the years 2004 and 2005 respectively. In view of the discussions made herein above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to grant notional benefits to the petitioners w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment and consequential benefits would be granted to the petitioners including the selection scale w.e.f. the date of acquisition of the requisite qualification. Apart from above, the petitioners would be entitled to get the benefit of the study leave of one year. Needless to observe that the respondents would pass necessary orders in compliance of the above order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All application (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. “ We have considered the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly both the respondents-petitioners were appointed under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1996 and acquired required qualification in the year 2004 and 2005 respectively and thereafter when the Department failed to grant them annual grade increments notionally under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1996, they filed the writ petition. We have perused the Rule 9 of the Rules, 1996, according to which, a candidate on acquiring qualifications as prescribed under the Rule 9 of the Rules, 1996, is entitled for annual grade increments notionally from the date of initial appointment but will not be entitled for any arrears. In this case also, the learned Single Judge has ordered for allowing the notional benefits of grade increments from the date of their initial appointments till the date of acquiring required qualification and thereafter regular annual grade increments. [2025:RJ-JP:31230-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-781/2024] We see no reason for interference in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court, hence, this appeal is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /23