[2025:RJ-JP:28290] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14407/2011 Satya Narayan Sharma son of Shri Srilalji, Atru, Distt. Baran Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Engineering, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Additional Chief Engineer, PWD Department, Kota Division, Kota 3. Assistant Engineer, PWD Department Sub Division Atru, Distt. Baran ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG, Mr. Aaditya Godara Ms. Minakshi Jain, Dy. G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 28/07/2025 1. By means of filing instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner claimed grant of I, II and III ACP's, counting his service w.e.f. 01.04.1982. 2. It appears that petitioner was appointed as Met “मेट” in the Department of Public Health and Engineering. Indisputably, on 01.04.1982, the petitioner was not a regular employee and benefits of ACP's I, II and III have been paid to petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2009 vide order dated 16.04.2010 (Ann.3), in furtherance to the circulars issued time to time by the Government of Rajasthan. [2025:RJ-JP:28290] (2 of 2) [CW-14407/2011] 3. The order dated 16.04.2010 (Ann.3), granting benefits of ACP to petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2009 along with the other employees has also been put to challenge. Basically challenge is to the circular dated 04.03.1998 wherein the cut off date i.e. 01.01.1998 was fixed for grant of benefit of ACP's. 4. It is not the case that petitioner has been discriminated with the similarly situated employees. Fixing a cut off date i.e. 01.01.1998, in the circular dated 04.03.1998, is a policy decision of the State Government, which has its logic and rationale and may not be quashed until and unless not stated to be violative to the statutory rules or same is found discriminatory or against the law. No such case has been make out by the petitioner. It is noteworthy that petitioner has already been granted benefits of ACP’s w.e.f. 01.04.2009 vide order dated 16.04.2010. 5. This Court does not find any reason to quash the order dated 16.04.2010 in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and allowed benefits of ACP to petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1982. At that time, petitioner was not regular employee. 6. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/48