[2026:RJ-JP:3332] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4457/2008 Har Phool Singh S/o Shri Bhairu Ram Garhwal, aged about 52 years, R/o Balram Nagar, behind Reserve Police Line, Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Registrar (Head of the Department) Cooperative Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Registrar (Adm.) Sehkar Bhawan, Jaipur 4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta with Mr. Rahul Ghiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek for RPSC Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing legality and validity of show cause notice dated 08.06.2007 issued by the Deputy Registrar Administration, whereby while modifying the date of grant of selection grade, recovery of excess amount has been proposed to be effected against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has come out with the case that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Inspector Grade-II on 03.11.1978 and on 16.11.1978, he was [2026:RJ-JP:3332] (2 of 5) [CW-4457/2008] sent for training to Cooperative Training College, Jaipur and his services were regularized on 22.02.1992. 3. It is submitted that pursuant to notifications dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998 issued by the Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan, benefits of selection grade were granted to the petitioner while computing services of 9, 18 and 27 years of the petitioner right from the date of first appointment on the post of Inspector Grade-II i.e. from the year 1978. The petitioner continued to draw such benefits as per the selection grade granted to him however, one show cause notice dated 08.06.2007 was issued in form of an order, which shows that as per notification dated 17.02.1998, while computing benefit of selection grade, services of 9, 18 and 27 years are to be counted not from the date of ad hoc/temporary appointment, but from the date of regular appointment. Hence, the petitioner was directed to show cause, why the earlier orders should not be modified and recovery of excess amount should not be made against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such action proposed by the respondents was quite arbitrary and in ignorance of the law prevalent at that time; whereas the petitioner never misrepresented or committed fraud in getting the benefits of selection grade and such benefits were granted by the respondents at their own. He submitted that the selection grade is granted on the basis of length of service and since the petitioner completed 9, 18 and 27 years of service, therefore, such benefits were rightly granted to him and cannot be reduced by the respondents in arbitrary manner. Hence, the show cause notice [2026:RJ-JP:3332] (3 of 5) [CW-4457/2008] was without authority of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that only show cause notice dated 08.06.2007 issued to the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner without there being any effective order in force. Learned counsel submits that Para-3 of circular dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998 are quite clear, where it has been provided in quite certain terms that only regular service of 9, 18 and 27 years shall be taken into account for the purpose of grant of selection grade. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in 2009 (12) SCC Page 49 in support of their contentions. Learned counsel further submits that as in ignorance to stated circulars earlier, wrong benefits, for which the petitioner was not entitled were granted to him and such benefits have rightly been withdrawn by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon the judgment of in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417, in support of his contention that the Government has right to rectify his action of wrong pay fixation earlier made. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the instant case, even before passing any order pursuant to show cause notice dated 08.06.2007, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proposed action on the basis of show cause notice. [2026:RJ-JP:3332] (4 of 5) [CW-4457/2008] 9. Contents of show cause notice have been perused, where while referring the clauses of circular dated 17.02.1998, it has been mentioned that services of 9, 18 and 27 years, for the purpose of grant of selection grade can be counted only from the date of regularization, since admittedly date of regularization of the petitioner is 22.02.1992, therefore, the services rendered prior to him as an ad hoc/temporary employee cannot be counted in the light of Para-3 of circular dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998. 10. In the light of case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that for the purpose of selection grade, only the regular services of the employee shall be taken into consideration. 11. Although, in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the employer can rectify its earlier mistake of pay fixation, however, in the subsequent judgment of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.1635/2013) decided on 08.08.2024 as well as Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the cases, where there is no allegation of misrepresentation and fraud against the employee, although the pay fixation order can be rectified, but no recovery can be effected against the employee. 12. In view of above, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled for grant of selection grade while computing his services from the date of his regularization i.e. 22.02.1992 and the respondents are at liberty to pass an order accordingly and to make pay fixation by computing his services for the purpose of [2026:RJ-JP:3332] (5 of 5) [CW-4457/2008] selection grade from the date of regularization. To this effect there is no illegality in impugned show cause notice dated 17.02.1998. 13. However, no action of recovery to recover the excess amount on account of benefit of selection grade earlier granted to him can be taken by the respondents in the light of above referred judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /84