[2026:RJ-JP:6309] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9509/2007 Prakash Chandra Purohit S/o Shri Vatsbaj Purohit, aged about 61 years, R/o Brahmpuri Gram Raj Mahal, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Ayurved Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Ayurved Department, Shastri Nagar, Road, Kesargarh, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni, Adv. for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment 10/02/2026 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following prayers:- "(i) By issuing an appropriate Writ, Order or direction the record pertaining to the case of the petitioner may kindly be summoned from the respondent. (ii) By issuing an appropriate Writ, Order or direction the respondent be directed to correct the rules of fixation of 1989 in accordance with the option given by the petitioner and accordingly next revised pay fixation be done with all consequential benefits and further the retiral benefits be revised accordingly. (iii) By issuing an appropriate Writ, Order or direction the respondents be directed to give the amount of arrears from 1.9.89 to till the receipt of the amount by the petitioner alongwith interest @ 12% per annum alongwith cost of the Writ Petition. (iv) Or any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and [2026:RJ-JP:6309] (2 of 3) [CW-9509/2007] circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner." 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak vide order dated 02.09.1973, joined duties on 03.10.1973 and was retired on 31.01.2004. It is argued that the petitioner was entitled for fixation in accordance with the Revised Pay Fixation Rules, 1989 (in short, 'Fixation Rules of 1989') which were applicable w.e.f. 01.09.1989. It is further contended that at the time of applying option under the Fixation Rules of 1989, the petitioner submitted his option, however, due to negligence of the department the petitioner could not avail the benefits and was denied the benefits for fixation under the Fixation Rules of 1989. Therefore, the respondents be directed to act upon in accordance with the option given by the petitioner at the relevant time and arrears of whole amount from the year 1989, till the receipt of the amount, may also be granted to the petitioner along with the interest of 12% per annum. 3. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner did not submit any option at the time when the Fixation Rules of 1989 came into existence. It is also contended that the petitioner retired in the year 2004 and the present writ petition was filed belatedly in the year 2007. The fixation rules came into existence in the year 1989. It is also contended that the Respondent No.2, Director Ayurved Department, Rajasthan vide its letter dated 01.08.2001 informed the District Ayurved Department, Ajmer that that in the service book of the petitioner, it was specifically mentioned that the fixation was not sought by [2026:RJ-JP:6309] (3 of 3) [CW-9509/2007] the petitioner within the prescribed time and therefore, after a lapse of 12 years, revision is not possible. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. There is no material available on record to show that the petitioner applied for the option under Fixation Rules of 1989. The petitioner remained in service from 1989 up to the year 2004, however, he did not endevour or prayed for submitting the option form. The contention of the petitioner that option form was submitted and letter was issued by the District Ayurved Officer dated 31.01.1992 stating that the petitioner's option form was found in a bad, is not believable. Furthermore, the writ petition is filed with an inordinate delay of 12 years. Therefore, considering the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 6. Upshot to the above discussion, the present writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-138