[2025:RJ-JP:13906] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5853/2001 Sita Ram Jat S/o Shri Hira Lal Jat, aged about 40 years, Resident of TR-43, Civil Lines, Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus The District And Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms.Niti Jain for Mr.Kapil Vyas JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondent to pay the salary of the post of Stenographer to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.05.1987 till 30.01.1992, by fixing him in the pay scale of the post of Stenographer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Lower Divisional Clerk (for short, “the LDC”), since the respondent was not having any Stenographer and the said post was lying vacant, hence, under these circumstances, vide order dated 04.05.1987, the petitioner was given temporary appointment on the post of Stenographer wherein he continued to work on the said post w.e.f. 04.05.1987 till 30.01.1992, hence, under these circumstances, he is entitled to get salary of the intervening period on the aforesaid post. [2025:RJ-JP:13906] (2 of 3) [CW-5853/2001] 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following orders:- (I) Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer Vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors.:(1998) 5 SCC 87 (II) Vijay Kumar Damor & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6547/2011 (III) Champalal Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6881/2015 (IV) The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar Damor & Ors.:D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.314/2013 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner was appointed as LDC. A stop-gap arrangement was made by the respondent for a limited time due to lack of Stenographer in the Office of the respondent. Counsel submits that while assigning the duties to the petitioner on the said post vide order dated 04.05.1987, a clear stipulation was made that he would be entitled to get the salary on the pay scale of LDC, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any salary for the post for which he was not having any qualification. 5. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance upon the provisions contained under Rule 26A of Rajasthan Service Rules. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference by this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record as well as order dated 04.05.1987 indicates that the petitioner was appointed and working on the post of LDC, but due to shortage of staff on the post of [2025:RJ-JP:13906] (3 of 3) [CW-5853/2001] Stenographer, as a stop-gap arrangement, the petitioner was assigned the duties of the said post. It is worthy to mention here that while passing the aforesaid order on 04.05.1987, a clear fact was mentioned that the petitioner would get the salary and pay scale, as payable to the post of LDC. 8. Accepting the terms and conditions of the said order, the petitioner discharged the functions on the post of Stenographer. The petitioner has already received salary payable on the post of LDC, hence under these circumstances, he is not entitled to get the salary payable on the post of Stenographer as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the order dated 04.05.1987. 9. This Court finds no merit and substance in this petition, hence, petition stands rejected. Stay application & other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J RONAK JAIMAN/13