[2026:RJ-JP:2304-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 895/2022 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2418/2016 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director Social Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Renu Joshi W/o Madhup Joshi, Aged About 61 Years, R/o B 242 Circular Road, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur-16, Rajasthan. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1/2023 Renu Joshi W/o Shri Madhup Joshi, Aged About 67 Years, R/o B- 242, Circular Road, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur- 16 (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 515/2022 Renu Joshi W/o Shri Madhup Joshi, Aged About 67 Years, R/o B- 242, Circular Road, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur-16 (Rajatshan). ----Appellant Versus 1. Dr Samit Sharma, Secretary Social Welfare Department G-3/1, Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur-302005. 2. Shri O.p. Bunkar Director, Social Welfare Department G- [2026:RJ-JP:2304-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-895/2022] 3/1, Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur 302005. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 895/2022 Ms. Priya Pareek in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1/2023 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1/2023 Ms. Priya Pareek in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 895/2022 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 19/01/2026 1. Against the order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Writ Petition bearing No.2418/2016 filed by the petitioner Renu Joshi was allowed by the learned Single Judge, the present two appeals, one bearing No.895/2022 filed by the State and another 1/2023 by the petitioner Renu Joshi and a contempt petition bearing No.515/2022 was filed by the petitioner Renu Joshi are listed before this Court today. 2. The facts as noted from the D.B. Special Appeal Writ bearing No.895/2022 filed by the appellant-State are taken as root case for deciding the present controversy. Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG submits that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on the post of Psychotherapist by Director, Social Welfare Department on 03.02.1996 on a payscale of 660-1240. The said appointment was purely on temporary basis for a period of three [2026:RJ-JP:2304-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-895/2022] months, however, the respondent-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’ for short) was allowed to continue on the said post for a certain period, however, the appointment of the petitioner came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court by one Ajeet Kumar by way of S.B. Writ Petition No.6825/1998 and the learned Single Judge by its order dated 11.09.1996 declared the appointment of the petitioner as illegal. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order, as passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Ajeet Kumar (supra), filed D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1033/1996 in which, initially the interim protection was granted on account of which the petitioner continued in the service, however, the Division Bench decided the appeal by passing the following order:- “The appointment, as mentioned at the outset, was intended to be temporary though it was stated in the advertisement that it was likely to be continued in future. We are of the view, having post for thirteen years and performed the duties throughout without complaint, that the benefit of the annual grade increments or pay revision should not be denied to her. We do not wish to go into the larger question as to whether the appellant possessed the requisite qualification as mentioned in the advertisement or not. It is not the case of any of the parties that the appointment was made in relaxation of the qualification. We therefore also do not intend to go into the question as to whether the qualification mentioned in the advertisement could be relaxed. The appointment was intended to be temporary though likely to be continued in future; we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served by directing the respondents, to allow the appellant the benefit of annual grade increment(s) and, also, pay revisions as admissible to the appellant, and pay the arrears for the intervening period and continue doing so till regular appointment is made on the post. Payment towards arrears as aforesaid should be made within two months of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench did not order for regularisation of the petitioner and her status [2026:RJ-JP:2304-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-895/2022] remained temporary, though she was allowed to have annual grade increments, pay revisions, arrears of pay for the intervening period along-with continuation till the regular selection on the post is made. 4. Learned AAG submitted that after the order dated 01.02.2007, they have granted all the respective financial benefits to the petitioner though not regularised and made permanent on the post, she superannuated on 31.10.2014. It is after attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, where she made the following prayer:- “i. to direct the respondents to release all the dues of the petitioner after revising her pay and allowances under the ACP Scheme and also release her gratuity, pension and amount of the encashment of privilege leave (PL) along with prevalent rate of interest @18% per annum till her date of retirement i.e. 31/10/2014 along with all consequential benefits. i/a. direct the respondents to regularize to the service of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor Clinical Psychology from her initial date of appointment i.e. 17.11.1993 with all consequential benefits. ii. direct the respondent to pay the petitioner provisional pensions that has accrued over the course of her employment iii. Cost of the litigation be awarded in favour of the petitioner. iv. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 5. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge without examining the fact that the petitioner was not regularly selected and appointed on temporary basis the post and also retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2014, allowed the [2026:RJ-JP:2304-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-895/2022] writ petition and ordered for regularisation of the petitioner with effect from 01.02.2007, with all consequential benefits. He further submitted that a person, who was not regularly selected and appointed on the post only on temporary basis and not having the required qualification cannot be ordered to be regularised post that too after her retirement and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 6. In support of his arguments learned AAG referred the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. :AIR 2006 SC 1806 & other judgments, and submitted that illegally appointed person cannot be ordered to be regularised. 7. In view of the various judicial pronouncements, learned counsel prayed that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Priya Pareek strongly opposed the arguments as raised by the learned AAG and submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent in 1986 and she worked continuously up to the age of superannuation that is 31.10.2014, without any break which clearly shows that she worked on the post for more than 28 years under the appellant-State. Learned counsel further submitted that though the appellant-state has argued that her appointment was on temporary basis, however, she was allowed to worked continuously without any objection neither in regard to her qualifications nor on the ground that her appointment was temporary and was only for a period of three months. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that it is one Ajeet Kumar, who challenged her appointment before the learned Single Judge [2026:RJ-JP:2304-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-895/2022] which was modified by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 01.02.2007, in the appeal she filed, in which the coordinate bench specifically recorded that up to that time the petitioner had already worked for a long period and noted that the action of the respondent of not giving the benefits of annual grade increments or pay revision was not found to be fair and legal, and therefore, while deciding the appeal as filed by the petitioner, by order dated 01.02.2007, the coordinate bench ordered for payment of annual grade increment and other financial benefits including the arrears. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an admitted fact that order dated 01.02.2007, was not put to challenge by the appellant-State and the same was accepted and all benefits in terms of the order was paid to her. 11. It is only in terms of the order of Division Bench dated 01.02.2007, the learned Single Judge examined her case for regularisation, though she prayed from 17.11.1993, however, the learned Single Judge ordered for regularisation with effect from 01.02.2007 considering the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 01.02.2007. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after considering the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the order dated 03.12.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. On the basis of the facts as noted above, it is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Psychotherapist by the respondent in the year 1986 and was later appointed on [2026:RJ-JP:2304-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-895/2022] the post of Assistant Professor, Clinical Psychology after she was interviewed by the Selection Committee of the respondent, in terms of which she worked from the year 1986 to 2014 that is up to the date of her superannuation however, when her appointment was questioned by one Ajeet Kumar Sharma (supra) before the learned Single Judge which was also allowed, however, the Division Bench in the appeal filed by the petitioner, modified by the order, did not disturb her working. The petitioner was allowed her to work continuously till regular appointments are made. Though the Division Bench ordered for continuation of the petitioner till regular selections are made, however, no appointment was made on the post on which the petitioner was working therefore, she worked continuously up to her date of superannuation i.e. 31.10.2014. 13.1 As the appellant State itself never questioned her qualifications for the post, more-so, when their own Selection Committee interviewed her in the year 1993, therefore, the State now have no legal basis to question the qualifications at this stage, post her retirement. Further, once the appellant themselves have granted all annual grade increments, pay revisions, arrears of pay, etc. in terms of order of the Coordinate Bench dated 01.02.2007 passed in D.B.S.A.W. No.1033/1996, according to this Court the learned Single Judge committed no mistake while passing the order dated 03.12.2021 by issuing the mandamus for regularisation of the petitioner from the date of the order of the Division Bench dated 01.02.2007. The petitioner who has worked for more than 28 years on the post of Assistant Professor, Clinical Psychology without any break, having received all financial [2026:RJ-JP:2304-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-895/2022] benefits and not disturbed by the appellants State itself has been rightly ordered for regularisation by the learned Single Judge by its order dated 03.12.2021, therefore, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. In D.B.S.A.W. No.1/2023 Renu Joshi Vs. State Of Rajasthan as the special appeal filed by the State is dismissed in terms of the above order, as the petitioner is not pressing the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. In D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 515/2022 as this Court has dismissed the Special Appeal bearing No.895/2022 filed against the order dated 03.12.2021, therefore, for compliance of the order the respondent-contemnors are granted four weeks’ time to make the compliance and file the necessary compliance report. In case of non-compliance the contemnors shall remain present before the Court. List this contempt petition on 23.03.2026. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Dushyant/37-39