[2026:RJ-JP:3349] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12844/2011 Kanaram S/o Shri Kajodya, aged around 61 years, R/o Village Amargarh Dang, Tehsil Saporta, District Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department (Irrigation), Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Superintendent of Engineer, Water Resources, Circle, Jaipur. 3. Assistant Engineer, Water Resources, Sub-Division, Saporta, District Karauli. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Soni, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 23/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to grant benefit of revised pay scale as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 w.e.f. 01.09.1988 as well as to grant benefit of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service by treating the petitioner as ‘Mate’ and to give him the benefit of fixation in Revised Pay Scales Rules, 1996. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged as work-charged employee on 16.07.1970 and was granted semi-permanent status on 16.07.1972. Thereafter, from 12.05.1975 he has been working on the post of ‘Mate’. Learned counsel submits that the State [2026:RJ-JP:3349] (2 of 4) [CW-12844/2011] Government from time to time issued circulars for granting selection grade to its Class-IV, Ministerial and Subordinate employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. He has given reference of circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998 and submits that benefits of such circulars have not been given to him. He has also submitted that after granting the benefits under the aforesaid circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998, he is entitled for fixation of his pay under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989 and 1996. 3. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents and submitted that the prayer made in the writ petition is totally vague, evasive and misconceived. He submits that petitioner has already been granted benefit of revision of pay in Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989; however, the petitioner has not challenged the order of pay revision in the instant writ petition. Apart from above, benefit of selection grade has also been granted to the petitioner on completion of 18 and 27 years of service pursuant to circular dated 30.09.1998 issued by the Finance Department, which is meant for the persons, who were appointed on work-charged basis. However, the petitioner has neither placed such order of grant of selection grade on record, nor has challenged the same in the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petition has been filed under misconceived notion of the fact that right from the beginning the petitioner was appointed under Rajasthan Class-IV Service Rules, whereas his appointment was under the Rajasthan Work-charged Employees Service Rules, [2026:RJ-JP:3349] (3 of 4) [CW-12844/2011] 1964. Learned counsel submits that for the purpose of granting benefit of selection grade, a separate scheme was framed by the State Government vide circular dated 30.09.1998, whereby benefits of selection grade are to be granted to the work-charged employees from 01.09.1988 while calculating their services from the date of assigning semi-permanent status. 5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has also not challenged the scheme of the Government in granting selection grade to the work-charged employees vide circular dated 30.09.1998, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any substance or merit and he prayed for dismissal of the same. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Bare perusal of the writ petition would reveal that no order, either of alleged promotion on the post of ‘Mate’, or of revision of pay in the Revised Pay Scale Rules, or of grant of selection grade has been placed on record by the petitioner. Apart from above, he has not challenged orders of revision of pay as well as grant of selection scale to the petitioner, with a further prayer to grant him better benefit than that have been granted to him. 8. The statement given by the petitioner in the writ petition that, the petitioner was entitled for selection scale as per circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998 is also misleading for the reason that such circulars are applicable only for the employees, who were appointed substantively either in Class-IV Service Rules or any other Service Rules regulating the [2026:RJ-JP:3349] (4 of 4) [CW-12844/2011] Ministerial/Subordinate Services. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed in any such services, he was rather appointed under Work-charged Service Rules, therefore, circular dated 30.09.1998 is applicable on the petitioner. The petitioner has deliberately concealed and suppressed such circular and, did not place the same on record. Such scheme of the Government for granting benefit of selection grade has also not been challenged by the petitioner. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have made it clear that the petitioner has already been granted benefit of revision of pay scale as well as benefit of selection grade as per prevailing rules and circulars which are applicable for work- charged employees. 9. In view of above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and same is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /85