[2026:RJ-JP:3862] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1114/2006 Satish Chandra Yogi S/o Shri Dhanpat Yogi, aged 40 years, presently working as Surveyor, National Highway Sub-Division, Public Works Department, Ajmer. R/o 420-A/28, Nai Basti, Bhajan Ganj, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1.State of Rajasthan, through Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, (National High Way Division), Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Executive Engineer, (National High Way Division), Public Works Department, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal Mr. Ayush Bansal Mr. Pawan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer: " (i). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction allowing the writ petition directing the respondents that the petitioner be treated as Junior Engineer in rank and status as well as for his duties and rights flowing from the post of Junior Engineer. He be assigned appropriate seniority from amongst the Junior Engineers on the basis of his continued officiation from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.08.1988 and grant him promotional benefits treating him as Junior Engineer. (ii). The respondents may please be further directed that the petitioner be assigned and allow him to perform all the duties and confer rights of Junior Engineer, he being treated as such. (iii). Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:3862] (2 of 7) [CW-1114/2006] (iv). Any other relief as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner." 2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed under the Rajasthan Work-Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (RWCWSR) (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rules of 1964') as Surveyor on 01.08.1888. He also possesses diploma in Civil Engineering however, when he was not assigned semi-permanent status and permanent status under the Rules of 1964, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5141/1996, which was decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.05.2001 and directions were given to the respondents to assign permanent status to the petitioner under the Rules of 1964 and consequently his pay was directed to be fixed in the pay scale of Junior Engineer/Surveyor and to be revised accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 21.05.2001, the Executive Engineer PWD passed order dated 31.03.2003 whereby, petitioner was assigned semi-permanent status and thereafter permanent status w.e.f. 01.08.1998 and accordingly, he was granted regular pay scale of Junior Engineer/ Surveyor. 4. Under the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering (Building and Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973, Junior Engineer has been defined as under: (k) "Junior Engineer" means Overseer, Surveyor, Computer, Laboratory Operator and such other Technical Personnel whose poses are treated by the State Government as higher or equivalent to that of a Junior Engineer in pay and qualifications, who is BE. (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) or possesses qualifications declared equivalent by Government "or possesses Diploma in (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) Engineer of a recognised Institution." [2026:RJ-JP:3862] (3 of 7) [CW-1114/2006] 5. While referring to aforesaid Rule, learned counsel submits that a Surveyor who possesses the relevant qualification i.e. a degree or diploma in Civil Engineering, is treated as Junior Engineer for the purpose of granting all the service benefits. He further submits that at the relevant time, three other persons were also appointed under the Work-Charged Rules as Surveyor in a manner similar to that of the petitioner. However, vide order dated 06.10.2000, the Chief Engineer PWD, constituted a Committee of three members for considering the cases of other three similarly situated persons' namely Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dixit, Hariom Gupta and Rajendra Prasad Sharma for regular selection/absorption to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Diploma Holder. 6. Accordingly, the duly constituted Committee considered their candidatures and vide order dated 13.10.2000, about three similar situated persons, who were also appointed as Surveyor, were given appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Diploma Holder was on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.5000- 8000. 7. Learned counsel submits that such benefit was not granted to the petitioner, which has caused grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner in as much as that he was deprived of benefit of further promotion on the higher post of Assistant Engineer and as the post of Surveyor is an isolated post therefore, no further promotion channel was available to the petitioner. Even, while granting benefit of selection grade, treating post of Surveyor to be an isolated post, such benefits were [2026:RJ-JP:3862] (4 of 7) [CW-1114/2006] granted under lower pay scale than the pay scale which is otherwise admissible to the Junior Engineers. 8. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to award the similar benefits as have been given to the above three similarly situated persons. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that on the date of constitution of Committee for considering the cases of Surveyor for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer on 06.10.2000, the petitioner was simply a work-charged employee and was neither assigned semi- permanent status nor permanent status. The Committee considered cases of only such persons, who were assigned permanent status on the post of Surveyor. Thus, the petitioner does not fall within the same class and cannot claim any parity with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dixit, Hariom Gupta and Rajendra Prasad Sharma. 10. Learned counsel submits that discrimination can be claimed only within the same class and in the instant case where, on the date of consideration, the petitioner and other persons were holding post of Supervisor in different capacity, therefore, the benefits as awarded to the other persons cannot be granted to the petitioner. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It has not been disputed that Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dixit, Hariom Gupta and Rajendra Prasad Sharma were appointed under Work-Charged Rules as Surveyor on 01.07.1987, 01.12.1987 and [2026:RJ-JP:3862] (5 of 7) [CW-1114/2006] 23.05.1988 respectively. The petitioner was also appointed as Surveyor under Work-Charged Rules on 01.08.1988. 13. As the petitioner was deprived of the benefits of semi- permanent status and permanent status under the Work-Charged Rules, he had to prefer a writ petition before this Court whereas, other three persons were granted such benefits of semi- permanent status and permanent status by the respondents at their own without even approaching to this Court. Thus, the petitioner who was otherwise deprived of his legitimate rights, cannot be made sufferer only on account of the fact that he had to approach this Court for getting benefits of semi-permanent status and permanent status. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2001 directing the respondents to assign him permanent status and to fix his pay in the pay scale meant for Junior Engineer/Surveyor. The order passed by learned Single Judge was unsuccessfully challenged by the State Government by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 761/2001, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2002. 14. Thus, the defence put forward by the respondents that on the date of consideration, the petitioner was not actually getting the benefits of permanent status on the post of Surveyor and therefore, he was not considered along with others, cannot be appreciated at this stage, when in compliance of order dated 21.05.2001 passed by this Court in earlier writ petition, the respondents themselves have assigned permanent status to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.1998. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, by virtue of legal fixation, the petitioner shall also be treated to have permanent status on the date of consideration of other [2026:RJ-JP:3862] (6 of 7) [CW-1114/2006] persons i.e. on 06.10.2000, for the purpose of granting regular pay fixation on the post of Junior Engineer. The right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to the petitioner on account of irrational and illogical grounds. No other dis-similarity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents nor could he dispute that the petitioner is not qualified for consideration on the post of Junior Engineer. 15. In the light of foregoing discussion as well as in view of the settled principles of law that, similar benefits are to be given to similarly situated persons, this Court finds that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 16. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of selection/appointment on the post of Junior Engineer in the same manner, in which such benefits have been granted to other similarly situated persons namely Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dixit, Hariom Gupta and Rajendra Prasad Sharma and in case, he is found eligible in respect of qualification then such benefits shall be granted to the petitioner from the same date on which, the benefits have been sanctioned and released to aforesaid three persons. 17. Arrears of difference of pay, if any, shall also be sanctioned and released to the petitioner. He shall also be assigned consequential benefits of seniority on the post of Junior Engineer and other consequential benefits. 18. Necessary exercise shall be carried out within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 19. The petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed. [2026:RJ-JP:3862] (7 of 7) [CW-1114/2006] 20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/40