[2026:RJ-JP:7453] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3048/2026 Ramdhan Choudhary Son Of Late Shri Badri Narayan Choudhary, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Badali, Post Kouthun, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, State Insurance And Provident Fund Department, Rajasthan. 2. Director, State Insurance And Provident Fund Department, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Sawami Mr. Rakesh Swami For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with following prayers: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordships may please to call for the entire record, allow this writ petition and may further please to: (i) By issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to grant First, Second and Third Selection Scales/ACPs to the petitioner, counting his service from the date of his initial appointment/joining i.e. 15.10.1984 with all consequential benefits along with interest on the arrears amount @9% per annum from the date it became due. (ii) By issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to revise pension of the petitioner after counting his service from the date of his initial appointment/joining i.e. 15.10.1984 along with interest on the arrear [2026:RJ-JP:7453] (2 of 3) [CW-3048/2026] amount @9% per annum from the date it became due (iii) By issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction which may be deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner with cost." 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially engaged as daily wager on 15.10.1984 and his services were regularized vide order dated 25.03.1995 issued by the Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department Rajasthan, Jaipur, w.e.f. 01.12.1994. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after attaining age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired in the year 2021 and his grievance is that he has not been granted benefit of selection scale by computing his services from the date on which he was initially appointed as daily wager. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1258/2024 (The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jawad Ahmed Usmani) and he submits that the aforesaid order has further been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. It has not been disputed that the initial engagement of the petitioner was as daily wager and it is a settled proposition of law that daily wager does not hold a post. It is also undisputed that the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.12.1994. [2026:RJ-JP:7453] (3 of 3) [CW-3048/2026] 7. In the order relied upon by the petitioner himself in the case of Jawad Ahmed Usmani (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has referred judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in 2009 (12) SCC 49, in which it has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of grant of selection scale/ACP, services of the incumbent shall be counted only from the date of regularization of services. 8. In the instant case, since services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.12.1994 after qualifying the proficiency test, therefore, no mistake has been committed by the respondent- Department in granting benefit of selection grade to the petitioner by computing his services from the date of regularization. Even otherwise, such disputes cannot be raised by the petitioner after a lapse of long time and moreso after five years of his retirement. 9. In view of above, there is no ground for interference in the present writ petition and the same, is hereby, dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/6