[2026:RJ-JP:3350] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10187/2015 Chandra Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Sharma, aged about 65 years, R/o B-130, Ranjeet Nagar, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To The Government Department Of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.rajasthan. 3. Dy. Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur. 4. District Education Officer, Secondary Education Second, Jodhpur Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 23/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking direction against the respondents to grant him benefit of senior and selection scale in terms of notification dated 07.08.1998 and further grant benefit of 3rd ACP under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008 by quashing letter/order dated 29.09.2014. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Senior Teacher (Commerce) vide order dated 26.02.1979 and he joined on 05.03.1979. Thereafter, an ad- hoc promotion to the post of School Lecturer (Commerce) was [2026:RJ-JP:3350] (2 of 8) [CW-10187/2015] granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.01.1983 and pursuant thereto, petitioner joined on 10.02.1983. While the petitioner was holding the post of ad-hoc School Lecturer, a promotion in the existing pay scale was offered to the petitioner vide order dated 07.09.2003. Such promotion order was not a promotion in fact and was merely a posting given to the petitioner, in the existing pay scale, to the post of Head Master. As such, the petitioner was not entitled for any finance upgradation pursuant to such order. Furthermore, although the petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Teacher substantively, yet benefits of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service were not granted to the petitioner at the relevant time under the pretext that, may be on ad-hoc basis, yet the petitioner was holding the post of Lecturer or Head Master, which are the post of State Services and the circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998 were applicable only in respect of Class-IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and not on State Services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that first time, the State Government issued one notification dated 07.08.1998, introducing the scheme of grant of senior scale to the persons holding the post of Lecturer on completion of 10 years and, thereafter selection scale on completion of 8 years in senior scale. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since, the petitioner had already completed more than 10 years as Lecturer on the date of issuance of notification dated 07.08.1998, he was entitled for senior scale on the post of Lecturer and thereafter, he completed 10+8=18 years of service in the year [2026:RJ-JP:3350] (3 of 8) [CW-10187/2015] 2001 and was accordingly entitled for selection scale on the post of Lecturer, however, he was deprived of such benefits by raising hyper technical issue that the petitioner was not substantively holding the post of Lecturer. 5. Thereafter, first time the petitioner was offered regular promotion through D.P.C. to the post of School Lecturer vide order dated 02.07.2005, however, on account of prevailing conditions, for bona fide reasons, petitioner had to forego such regular promotion. Thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired w.e.f. 30.06.2011. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of the petitioner for senior and selection scales was pending since issuance of notification dated 07.08.1998, and even after his retirement, he submitted representation for considering his case for grant of senior and selection scales as per notification dated 07.08.1998, however, such representation has been rejected vide letter/order dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure-8) on the ground that since, the petitioner has foregone promotion in the year 2005 and was never granted any other chance for promotion, therefore, as per new ACP Rules (Rules framed in year 2008) the petitioner was not entitled for grant of ACP. 7. Learned counsel submits that the respondent- Government cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold both. In his entire service career, the petitioner has not been granted benefit of selection scale under circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998, due to not treating him to be substantive senior teacher under Subordinate Service Rules as he was working as ad- hoc Lecturer, nor benefit of senior/selection scale pursuant to [2026:RJ-JP:3350] (4 of 8) [CW-10187/2015] notification dated 07.08.1998 was not granted him due to not holding substantive post of Lecturer. The reason for denying the benefits due to foregoing promotion in 2005 are totally baseless and unfounded as the benefits accrued in the year 1998 and 2001 cannot be examined at the touchstone of new ACP Rules which were framed in the year 2008, and are apparently not retrospective in nature. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that an employee is entitled for pay fixation and upgradation benefits, subject to terms and conditions of financial scheme of the Government reflecting in the form of different circulars/notifications. Although, the petitioner was substantively appointed as Senior Teacher under the Subordinate Service Rules, yet only after four years, he was assigned the post of Lecturer, may be on ad-hoc basis, but was getting some additional pay by virtue of his officiating on the post of Lecturer; hence, on account of having designation as Lecturer, which is otherwise post of State Service under Rajasthan Education Service Rules of 1970, benefits of selection grade under circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998 were not applicable upon him. 9. Learned Government Counsel emphasized that the notification dated 07.08.1998 was explicitly clear in its terms, where such benefit was to be given only to the Lecturer holding the post substantively under the Rules either by virtue of direct recruitment or by grant of promotion regularly through D.P.C. The petitioner was not falling in any of such categories, therefore, such benefits were not granted to him. [2026:RJ-JP:3350] (5 of 8) [CW-10187/2015] 10. Learned counsel further highlighted that financial upgradations in the form of senior/selection scale are granted in lieu of promotion with the condition that as and when promotions is offered to the employee, such promotion shall be accepted by him. In the instant case, since regular promotion to the post of School Lecturer against the vacancies of the year 1997-1998 was offered to the petitioner on 02.07.2005, therefore, in the light of Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008, a person who has foregone promotion shall not be entitled for any financial upgradation/ACP. Therefore, no mistake or error whatsoever has been committed by the respondents in denying benefit to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel also raised an objection that the petitioner suffers from delay and laches as the benefits which, as per the claim of the petitioner, were otherwise admissible to him in the year 1998, 2001 or even in 2005, have been claimed by the petitioner first time by way of filing writ petition in the year 2015. Thus, only on this ground, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Firstly, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that, in the entire service career of the petitioner of 32 years, he was not granted even a single benefit of financial upgradation either in the form of promotion or under the scheme of grant of selection/senior scale. 14. The reason assigned for not granting benefit of selection scale to the petitioner under the circulars dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998 as well as for not extending benefit of [2026:RJ-JP:3350] (6 of 8) [CW-10187/2015] senior/selection scale under the notification dated 07.08.1998 are self contradictory. At one point of time, the petitioner was denied benefits treating him as an employee holding the post of Lecturer which as per the respondents is the post of State’s Service, who was not entitled for selection scale meant for Class-IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services. On the other hand, the petitioner has been deprived of his right under the notification dated 07.08.1998 narrating him to be only ad-hoc Lecturer not holding the post substantively in State Service on the post of Lecturer. The respondents cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate the same thing so as to deprive an employee of his legitimate rights. 15. Even if, the petitioner has foregone the regular promotion which was first time offered to him vide order dated 02.07.2005, it would not negate his claim for the reason that since 1979 till 2005, at no point of time any benefit of financial upgradation was given to him, whereas even by treating him as Lecturer, as per notification dated 07.08.1998, on completion of 10 years of service, the petitioner was entitled for senior scale and thereafter, on completion of 8 years of service in senior scale the petitioner was entitled for selection scale. Thus, had the benefits under the notification dated 07.08.1998 been given correctly to the petitioner, the petitioner would have got such benefits by the year 2001. Therefore, petitioner cannot be put at disadvantageous position only on the ground that although, he was eligible for senior and selection scales in the year 1998 and 2001, which were however not granted to him, yet 4 years thereafter, since he has foregone such promotion, such foregoing of promotion would [2026:RJ-JP:3350] (7 of 8) [CW-10187/2015] extinguish all the vested rights of the petitioner. Such reasoning cannot be countenanced and appreciated by this Court. 16. Even otherwise the reason assigned in denial letter/order dated 29.09.2014 is bereft of any legal authority for the reason that admittedly Revised Pay Scale Rules were framed in the year 2008, therefore, such rules cannot be applied retrospectively so as to take away the rights which have otherwise been crystallized prior to enforcements of such Rules of 2008. 17. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, and after analysis of all the facts and perusal of impugned order, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which is hereby allowed. The order/letter dated 29.09.2014 issued by the District Education Officer (Secondary Second) Education Department is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for benefit of senior and selection scale under the notification dated 07.08.1998 from the date of completion of 10 years of service as Lecturer. The case of 3rd ACP of the petitioner shall also be examined, ignoring the fact that the promotion offered to him on 02.07.2005, was foregone by the petitioner and, in case, the petitioner is otherwise entitled for 3rd ACP, the same shall also be granted to him. Necessary exercise for sanctioning such benefits and pay fixation shall be made within a period of 60 days and benefit of arrears of difference of pay shall also be granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, pension and other retiral benefits, admissible to the petitioner shall also be revised accordingly, and the petitioner shall also be entitled for arrears thereof. [2026:RJ-JP:3350] (8 of 8) [CW-10187/2015] 18. In case, the benefits are not extended to the petitioner within a period of 60 days as stated above, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 19. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /86