[2025:RJ-JP:33045] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10680/2009 Sita Ram Son of Late Shri Nathu, aged about 76 years, at present resident of Village Bapu, Via Kotkhawada, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Chief Engineer Buildings, Public Works Department, Jacob Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Additional Chief Engineer, Division-II, Public Works Department, Jacob Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 4. The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Gramin, Jacob Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 5. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Deptt. , District Zone-II, Jacob Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 6. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, District Zone, Amber Head Office, Head Office, Jacob Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/08/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to grant benefit of selection scale to the petitioner by counting his length of service from date of his initial appointment i.e., 28.08.1956 or from the date of assignment of Semi Permanent Status from 01.12.1960 and to grant all consequential benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:33045] (2 of 3) [CW-10680/2009] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged in the year 1956 on the post of 'Beldar' on daily wages basis, however, he was assigned Semi Permanent Status w.e.f., 01.12.1960 and later on after assigning permanent status, he was granted regular pay scale w.e.f., 01.04.1966. On attaining age of superannuation, he has retired from services of the respondents on 30.06.1992. Prior to his retirement, the State Government issued circular dated 25.01.1992 for introducing the concept of grant of selection grade in the cases where the employee was not promoted on higher post even on completion of 9/18/27 years of services, then in such cases by way of granting I/II/III selection grade, his pay was to be fixed in the pay scale of the next promotion post but such benefits were not granted to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents seriously opposed the writ petition by stating the same to be misconceived and misdirected. It was objected that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition in the years 2009, whereas he stood retired wayback in the year 1992 and there is no explanation whatsoever in the entire writ petition for approaching this Court after delay of 17 years for claiming the benefits of a circular which was admittedly issued prior to the retirement of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.;, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3716/2010 decided on 11.08.2025 has decided the similar controversy where the benefit of selection grade was denied. [2025:RJ-JP:33045] (3 of 3) [CW-10680/2009] 5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record. 6. Admittedly, in the instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking benefit arising out of one circular issued by the State Government in the year 1992 which was issued during his services and before his retirement. Admittedly, on attaining age of superannuation, he has retired in the year 1992. No explanation whatsoever has been put forward by the petitioner for not approaching the Writ Court for a period of 17 years. Hence, clearly the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers from the vice of delay and latches. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy and such decision cannot be extended in favour of the person who was not diligently pursuing his rights for 17 long years. 7. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/15