[2026:RJ-JP:3579] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13915/2019 1. Mahaveer Prasad Swami, S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Swami, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 19, Narain Puri, Jhotwara, Jaipur. 2. Girish Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Pal Singh, R/o Plot No. 365/12, Ganesh Nagar, Taragarh Road, Ramganj, Ajmer. 3. Hanuman Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Nanu Ram Sharma, R/o Street Of Mitha Kua, Lohakhan Police Line, Ajmer. 4. Laxman Tamra, S/o Shri Banwari Lal Tamra, R/o Plot No. 33, Jeewan Mandir Colony, Shalik Nagar, Lohagarh, Ajmer. 5. Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, R/o 17, Khandelwal Nagar Extension, Agra Road, Jaipur. 6. Rafiq Ahmed Kaji, S/o Shri Kaji Abdul Rahman, Kassiyo Ka Mohalla, Village Naraina, Distt. Jaipur. 7. Hansraj Kumawat, S/o Shri Kanhya Lal Kumawat, R/o Near Ravan Gate, Dholi Mandi, Chomu, District Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13877/2017 Banarsi Lal Gupta S/o Shri Bansi Dhar Gupta, R/o Plot No. 20- 21, Suresh Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur, Udaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5319/2018 Megh Singh Chauhan, S/o Shri Jagdish Singh Chauhan, R/o Plot [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (2 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] No. 58, Bhagirath Nagar, Near Swaimadhopur Railway Line, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13620/2019 Randhir Singh S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o 4-Ka-180, Shivaji Park, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14963/2019 Savant Ram Gujjar S/o Shri Shri Heera Ramji, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Amrasar, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8556/2018 Shyam Sunder Sharma, S/o Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, R/o 143, Ranjit Nagar, Khatipura, Jhotwra, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Dparment Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8659/2018 Jagmohan Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, R/o 25-A, Ashok Vihar, [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (3 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] Malpura Road, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10021/2018 Bishan Singh Nekadi, S/o Shri Narayan Lal Nekadi, R/o At Present Working As Camp Attendant, Room No. 401, Khaniz Bhawan, Mines Department, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Dparment Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13660/2019 Kishori Lal Sharma S/o Puran Chand Sharma, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Plot No. 2-Ka-283, Shivaji Park, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14580/2019 Satish Chand Jain S/o Shri Sugam Chand Jain, Aged About 62 Years, R/o B-30, Indra Colony, Heera Das Circle, Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Direcotr, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17696/2019 Mohammad Riyaz Abbasi S/o Late Shri Mohammad Fateh [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (4 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] Abbasi, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 20, Jagdish Colony, Amer Road, Ramgarh, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21034/2019 Srinarayan Saini S/o Shri Khetaram Saini, R/o New Saini Colony, Opp. Sr. Higher Secondary School, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. 3. The Director, Department Of Pension And Pensioner Welfare, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3676/2021 Mahesh Kumar Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Ram Rich Pal Singh, R/o 53, Lions Colony, Post Office Airport, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Deaprtment Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8579/2021 Ramji Lal Balai S/o Shri Shankar Lal Balai, Aged About 63 Years, R/o B-85, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (5 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3951/2022 Sudarshan Singh S/o Late Shri Jagiri Ram, R/o 40, Lions Colony, Tonk Road, Behind Ram Mandir, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14200/2019 Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Sri Krishna Sharma , C/o Hari Kumar Sharma, Opp. Garg Dairy, Purohit Mohalla, Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Direcotr, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15987/2010 1. State Of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Mines and Geology Department 2. Director Mines and Geological Department, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajendra Kumar Bairwa s/o Shri Mool Chand Bairwa resident of Near New Bus Stand, Ward No. 33, Tonk, Nakedar/LDC, Office of Assistant Mining Engineer, Tonk 2. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajatshan, Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (6 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13874/2017 Tara Chand Soni S/o Late Shri Kanhya Lal Soni, R/o Plot No. A- 23, Sri Ram Colony, Near Ara Machine, Jai Singh Pura Khor, Delhi Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur, Udaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Mathur Ms. Isha Belani Mr. Shubham Gupta for Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC (In SB CWP No.15987/2010) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Pulkit Bharadwaj HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/01/2026 1. These writ petitions were filed individually but they raises a common question of law, therefore, they are tagged together and we are disposing of these writ petitions with a common order. 2. These writ petitions are preferred with following prayer: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13915/2019: It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28-3-2018 & consequential orders of respondents to declare member of service under Rules 1957 from date of conferring semi permanent status of work charge order 74 may be [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (7 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] declared in violation/ inconsistent to Govt. order and verdict of this hon'ble court dated 6-5-2016 passed in Pramod Bhandari's case and also to case of Mohd Riyaz Abassi & ors and further with direction to respondents to declare petitioners as member of service or under the Rules of 1957 from initial date of appointment in alternative as per Govt. General order dt. 4-3-1998 & 15-9- 2015 after two years alike other workcharge employee of State with all consequential benefits with revised pay, selection scale & pension etc. subject to decision of the pending clarification application No. 228/18 filed by State Govt. at Jodhpur in Judgment dt. 6-5-16.Or any other relief deem proper in interest of justice. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13877/2017: That by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to allow the writ petition of the petitioner by treating the petitioner as regular under the Rajasthan Ministerial Staff Rules 1957 in the light of the verdict of this Hon'ble court in the light of verdict of this Hon'ble court. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5319/2018: It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pass an effective order to confer regular LDC cadre status from date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits of promotion in regular cadre UDC etc. from LDC in pursuance of judgment dt. 6-5-16 in Jodhpur in case filed by Pramod Bhandari C.W.No. 1646/13 & dated 2-2-2017 passed in case of Mohammad Riyaz abbasi by this Hon'ble court in the matter of identical cases of Work charge Nakedar working [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (8 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] with the same respondents by showing name of the petitioner in the seniority of regular LDC cadre from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner (on work charge basis on 19-8-1982 with all consequential benefits for promotion due from time to time on the post of UDC, O.A etc. within stipulated period of time and the impugned order dated 6-2-2018 may be declared contrary to verdict of this Hon'ble court or In alternative set aside order dt. 6-2-18 in the interest of justice. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13620/2019:- It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28-3-2018 of respondents may be declared in violation/inconsistent to verdict of this hon'ble court dated 6-5-2016 passed in Pramod Bhandari's case and also to case of Mohd Riyaz Abassi & ors and declare member of service. petitioner under Service Rules of 1957 from initial date of appointment 21-10-1978 or in alternative as per Govt. General order dt. 4-3-1998 after two years from initial appointment in year 78 of petitioner with all consequential benefits with revised pay, selection scale & pension etc. subject to decision of clarification application filed byState Govt.at Jodhpur in Judgment dt. 6-5-2016 in the interest of justice. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14963/2019: It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28-3-2018 & consequential orders of respondents to declare member of service under Rules 1957 from date of conferring semi permanent status of work charge order 74 may be declared in violation/ inconsistent to Govt. verdict [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (9 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] of this hon'ble court dated 6-5-2016 passed in Pramod Bhandari's case and also to case of Mohd Riyaz Abassi & ors and further with direction to respondents to declare petitioners as member of service under the Rules or in alternative orders and of 1957 from initial date of appointment as per Govt. General order dt. 4-3-1998 & 15-9- 2015 after two years alike other workcharge employee of State with all consequential benefits with revised pay, selection scale & pension etc. subject to decision of the pending clarification application of State Govt.in Judgment dt. 6-5- 16/2-2-17.Or any other relief deem proper in interest of justice. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8556/2018:- It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass in of Initial an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to assign seniority to the petitioner of regular class IVth employee regular cadre from the date appointment and consider for promotion on higher post of Lower Division clerks under the then prevailing Rules 1957 with all consequential benefits of promotion from the date when junior to the petitioner were given with all consequential benefits. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8659/2018:- It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass in regular cadre from the date of initial an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to assign seniority to the petitioner of regular class IVth employee appointment and consider for promotion on higher post of Lower Division clerks under the then prevailing Rules 1957 with all consequential benefits of promotion from the date with all to the petitioner when [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (10 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] junior to the petitioner were given all consequential benefits. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1002/2018: It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to assign seniority to the petitioner of regular class IVth employee in regular cadre from the date of initial appointment and consider for promotion on higher post of Lower Division clerks under the then prevailing Rules 1957 with all consequential benefits of promotion from the date when junior to the petitioner were given with all consequential benefits. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13660/2019:- It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28-3-2018 of respondents may be declared in violation/inconsistent to verdict of this hon'ble court dated 6-5-2016 passed in Pramod Bhandari's case and also to case of Mohd Riyaz Abassi & ors and declare member of service to petitioner under Service Rules of 1957 from initial date of appointment 18-10-1978 or in alternative as per Govt. General order dt. 4-3-1998 after two years from initial appointment in year 78 with all consequential benefits with revised pay, selection scale & pension etc. subject to decision of the pending clarification application No. 228/18 filed by State Govt.at Jodhpur in Judgment dt. 6-5- 2016. Or any other relief deem proper in the interest of justice. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14580/2019: It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28-3- 2019 of respondents may be declared in violation/inconsistent to verdict of this [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (11 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] hon'ble court dated 6-5-2016 passed in Pramod Bhandari's case and also to case of Mohd Riyaz Abassi & ors. & further respondents may be directed to grant all consequential benefits in the light of judgment dated 6-5-2016 of this Hon'ble court to declare member of service to petitioner under Service Rules of 1957 from initial date of appointment 18-10-1978 or in alternative as per Govt. General order dt. 4-3-1998 after two years from initial appointment in year 78 with all consequential benefits with revised pay, selection scale & pension etc. subject to decision of the pending clarification application No. 228/18 filed by State Govt.at Jodhpur in Judgment dt. 6-5- 2016 in the interest of justice. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17696/2019: 1. It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28-3-2018 & consequential orders of respondents to declare member of service under Rules 1957 from date of conferring semi permanent status under un-notified (inapplicable) work charge order 74 may be declared in violation/ inconsistent to Govt. orders and verdict of this hon'ble court dated 6-5-2016 passed in Pramod Bhandari's case and also to case of Mohd Riyaz Abassi & ors and further with direction to respondents to count services of petitioner for selection scale and pension from initial date of appointment on work charge Nakedar LDC) with all consequential benefits. 2. That in alternative by appropriate writ or order the respondents may be directed confer semi permanent status after two years as per Govt. General order dt. 4-3-1998 alike other workcharge employee of State departments with [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (12 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] all consequential benefits with revised pay, selection scale etc. same may be made subject to decision of the pending clarification Misc. application No. 228/18 of State Govt. in Judgment dt. 6-5-16 pending at Principal Bench for counting services from initial date of appointment or conferring from date of semi permanent status as per work charge order 1974. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21034/2019: 1. It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order annex.4 dated 9-4-2019 to the extent of considering date of joining for purpose of pension on 21-6-1984 instead of 24-8-1978 as per annex.1 and 2 be declared arbitrary 16 of the and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also Govt. own order dt. 6.03.1997 of counting qualifying services of w.e.f. 21-6-1978 with all daily wages i.e. consequential benefits of revised pension with 9% interest. 2. That by issuing an appropriate writ or order annex. 6 dated 28-3-1918 may be declared arbitrary for considering regular services under Rules of 1957 contrary to Govt. order dt. 15-9- 2015 at par with workcharge employees of PWD & PHED Employees in consonance to Order dt. 4-3- 1998 (Annex.7 and verdict dt.6-5-2016 subject to pending clarification application of State Govt. with all consequential benefits with benefits. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3676/2021:- It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to treat the services of petitioner under the then Rules 1957 from date of initial appointment on 18-10-1977, when petitioner was appointed through employment [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (13 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] exchange vis-à-vis shri Prem Prakash Srivastava, who was not duly appointed by any legal mode even then granted benefit from initial dateof appointment and further it is also fortified by virtue of judgment dated 6-5-2016 passed in Pramod Bhandari's case by this Hon'ble High Court at Jodhpur & followed at Jaipur bench in the case of Mohd Riyaz Abassi & ors. 2. In alternative relief the respondents may be directed to confer semi permanent status on completition of two years of work charge service from initial dte of appointment as per Govt. General order dt. 4-3-1998 with all consequential benefits with revised pay, selection scale & and revised pension etc. in view of having declared unnotified to work charge order of year 1974 by this Hon'ble High Court Or any other relief deem proper in the interest of justice. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8579/2021:- It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 30-1-2020 of respondents may be declared arbitrary & set aside being in consistent to letter and spirit to verdict of Pramod this hon'ble court dated 6-5-2016 passed in Bhandari's case and also to case of Mohd Riyaz Abassi & ors and petitioner may be declared member of service under Service Rules of 1957 from initial date of appointment 28-11-1977 or in alternative as per Govt. General order dt. 4-3- 1998 after two years from initial appointment with all consequential benefits with revised pay, selection scale & and revised pension etc. Or any other relief deem proper in the interest of justice. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3951/2022:- [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (14 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] It is, therefore, humbly prayed to order your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, direction the order dated 28-3-2018 & consequential orders of respondents to declare member of service under Rules 1957 from date of conferring semi permanent status under un-notified (inapplicable) work charge order 74 may be declared arbitrary and inconsistent to Govt. orders and verdict of this hon'ble court dated 6-5-2016 and further with direction to respondents to count services of petitioner for grant of pension & selection scale from initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits by refixating pension of petitioner. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14200/2019:- It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your Honour to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28-3-2018 of respondents may be declared in violation/inconsistent to verdict of this hon'ble court dated 6-5-2016 passed in Pramod Bhandari's case and also to case of Mohd Riyaz Abassi & ors. & further respondents may be directed to grant all consequential benefits in the light of judgment dated 6-5-2016 of this Hon'ble court to declare member of service to petitioner under Service Rules of 1957 from initial date of appointment 18-7-1978 or in alternative as per Govt. General order dt. 4-3-1998 after two years from initial appointment in year 78 with all consequential benefits with revised pay, selection scale & pension etc. subject to decision of the pending for clarification application in Judgment dt. 6-5-2016/2-2-17 filed by the State of Rajasthan with regard to application of above judgment from date of initial date of appointment [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (15 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] or date of semi permanent appointment in the interest of justice. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15987/2010:- (i) Quash and set aside the order dated 29/6/2010 (Annexure-6). (ii) Cost of litigation be awarded in favour of the petitioners. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13874/2017: That by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass necessary order within stipulated period of time of two months to grant semi permanent status after completing three years of services on 11-7-1980 from date of as initial date of appointment on 11-7-1977 as granted to similarly situated persons namely Banarsi Lal Gupta and ors in conformity to the rule 3(3) of the work charge employees Rules 1974, as rectified its mistake vide order dt. 5-8-2008 in favour of Mahesh Kumar Singh etc. in the interest of justice with all consequential benefits of selection scale and arrears and also consider promotion on higher regular cadre of service rules 1957 from the date of appointment in view of verdict of this Hon'ble court passed in Writ Petition NO. 1646/2013 vide judgment dt. 6-5-2016 and case of Mohd. Riyaz Abbassi in writ No. for 4555/2016 vide judgment dt. 02.202.2017 within stipulated period of time with speaking order in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners have joined services under the respondent department on work charge basis and after two years they were given semi- [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (16 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] permanent status. He further submitted that the petitioners have prayed for regularization on posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with effect from the date of their initial appointment in the service, treating them under the Rajasthan Subordinate Officer Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short, Rules of 1957). He further submitted that initially two petitions were filed by (i) Pramod Bhandari and Others and (ii) Ramesh Chand and Ors. and both were allowed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur on 06.05.2016 by a common order. He further submitted that subsequently a few more petitions were filed before this Hon’ble Court and on the basis of the judgment in the case of Pramod Bhandari and Ors. (supra), the same were allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 02.02.2017 and on 05.07.2016 respectively. 4. He also submitted that by order of this Hon’ble Court it was declared that the Mines and Geology Work Charge Employees Service Condition Order, 1974 (for short, Order of 1974), which came into effect on 15.01.1975, were not applicable upon the petitioners, as the said order was never notified. He also submitted that after attaining finality of the said orders, the services of petitioners were regularized and orders were issued arbitrarily by the respondent department. 5. While referring the order dated 06.05.2016 passed in the case of Pramod Bhandari and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan and Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1646/2013, and also the order passed in the case of Mohd. Riyaz Abassi versus State of Rajasthan and [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (17 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4555/2016, he submitted that as per said orders, the benefits were not given to the petitioners from their initial date of appointment under the Rules of 1957. He further submitted that the respondents have deliberately violated the order passed by this Hon’ble Court and have never given effect to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Pramod Bhandari (supra). He also placed reliance upon several orders passed by the Government of Rajasthan in respect of other departments, wherein from the date of initial appointment, similarly situated employees were regularized by the respondent department. 6. He placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Director of Education (Uttarakhand) versus Ved Prakash Joshi and Others, reported in All India Service General, SC (IX-2005) (3) page 4, submitted that the only objection of the respondent is that the satisfaction or compliance of judgement in case of Pramod Bhandari and Ors. (supra) has been recorded vide order dated 19.12.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 35/2018 and bunch of petitions is not applicable in pursuing remedy in the instant case. He also submitted that this Hon’ble Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, is primarily concerned with the question of contemptuous conduct of the party, who is alleged to have committed default in compliance with the directions issued in the judgment, but when a writ petition is filed before this Court, the only concern is with the entitlement of the petitioners. [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (18 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] He further submitted that the respondents were under an obligation to give effect to the judgment in letter and spirit, but in the instant case, they have not given effect to the terms of the judgment as passed in favour of the petitioners. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the order dated 06.05.2016 passed in the case of Pramod Bhandari (supra) has been implemented in letter and spirit and the same is evident from the orders issued by the respondent department. He further placed reliance upon the order dated 19.12.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 35/2018, Mohammad Riyaz Abassi vs. Arpana Arora and Others, and submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, after taking note of the orders issued by the respondent department, pursuant to the directions of this Court, has closed the contempt proceedings and recorded substantial compliance of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. He further submitted that only a liberty was granted to petitioners to seek remedy in respect of grant of selection scale or pensionary benefits, etc. He also placed reliance upon the reply and the orders issued by the respondents and submitted that the orders issued by them clearly reflect substantial compliance by the respondent department. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also perused the judgment as referred by learned counsel for petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (19 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] 9. These writ petitions were filed individually or jointly but the prayer in each of the writ petition has been reproduced hereinabove; however, for the sake of brevity, the facts of each case are not being referred to, as there is no factual dispute between the parties. The basis of the claim of the petitioners is the order dated 06.05.2016 passed in the case of Pramod Bhandari and Others versus State of Rajasthan and Others (supra) and, for ready reference, the order dated 06.05.2016 is being reproduced as under: “1. In both these writ petitions similar point is involved, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1646/2013 are taken. 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the petitioners services should be regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerk with effect from the date of their initial appointment in service while treating their services under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short “the Rules of 1957”) with all consequential benefits including pay, selection grade etc. 3. In brief, the department of Industries and Mines issued a circular dated 30.10.1973 in which it was decided to convert the post of Nakedars into Lower Division Clerks with a further stipulation at Item No. 6 that in future all fresh recruitments should be made only as Lower Division Clerks, subject to their qualifications as prescribed in the Rules of 1957. The “Mines and Geology Work-charged Employees (Service Conditions) Order,1974” (for short 'the Order of 1974”) was framed and to come into effect [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (20 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] from 15.1.1975. The petitioners came to be appointed in the department on 30.3.1980 and they have been discharging their services continuously and seek all service benefits to be made applicable to them under the Rules of 1957, instead of being treated and given the benefits under the Order of 1974. 4. Mr. Pramendra Bohra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1980 and the Government had decided to absorb the post of Nakedars into the post of Lower Division Clerks. The Order of 1974 was never notified and thus, the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits under the Rules of 1957, instead of Order of 1974 which never came to be notified. 5. Mrs. Suman Porwal, Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is not able to dispute the fact that the Order of 1974 was never notified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 7. Admittedly, as far as back on 30.10.1973 the department of Industries and Mines had decided that all future fresh recruitments would be made as Lower Division Clerks, subject to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules of 1957.Subsequent thereto, an order also came to be issued on 26.2.1975 wherein it was directed that no appointment in work-charge category should be made at any level and in case of non-compliance, the whole responsibility financial or otherwise would be of the appointing authority. The office order dated 30.3.1973 specified that in future all appointments would be made only as Lower Division Clerks, subject to their qualifications as prescribed under the [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (21 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] Rules of 1957. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1957came to be amended by notification dated 20.8.1978 wherein it was specified that employees previously employed as Nakedars or regular work charged employees are to in the Mines and Geology department may be absorbed and appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on posts initially sanctioned subject to their qualification. Even the Rules of 1957 make a provision for absorption of daily wagers/ nakedars working in Mines and Geology department as class IV employee’s under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. 8. Therefore as necessary corollary the services of the petitioners, who came to be appointed in the year 1980, would not be governed under the Order of 1974 and will have to be treated as appointed under the Rules of 1957 since “Mines and Geology Work-charged Employees (Service Conditions) Order,1974” was never notified. 9. In view of the above, the above noted writ petitions are allowed and it is directed that the respondents should treat the petitioners as having been appointed under the Rules of 1957instead of treating their appointments under the Order of 1974,which was never notified. All consequential benefits that accrue to the petitioners be released to the petitioners while treating them to be governed under the Rules of 1957.” 10. Aforementioned judgment has attained finality and on the basis of the aforesaid ratio, several writ petitions were subsequently disposed of and allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The decision has made it clear that the Mines and Geology Work-Charged Employees Service Condition Order, 1974, was never applicable upon any of the [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (22 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] petitioners, as the Order of 1974 was never notified and it was not given effect, thus no order can be issued thereunder. On being given effect, the petitioners were found entitled for absorption under the Rules of 1957. The petitioners were also found entitled for all consequential benefits that accrued to the petitioners, treating them to be governed under the Rules of 1957. 11. While deciding a bunch of petitions on 22.06.2017, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered that the Rules of 1957 were repealed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff Rules, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1999”). The concluding part of the order dated 22.06.2017 is reproduced as under: “After taking note of the submissions made and also the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench of which reference has been made dt.6- 5-2016 & also the fact that the Order, 1974 was never notified and not being controverted by the State Counsel, there appears no reason for the State Government not to make them member of the Rules, 1975 now 1999 and extend consequential benefits treating them to be member of service including selection scale & other service benefits in consequence flowing thereof. In the light of the order of the Coordinate Bench, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the present batch of petitions in the same terms extending the benefits mutatis mutandis and direct the respondents that the consequential benefits accrued to the petitioners be released treating them to be [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (23 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] member of the scheme of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1999. Necessary orders be passed by the State Government after examining individual case under the Scheme of Rules, 1999 within a period of four months. Copy of the order be separately placed in each file.” 12. Pursuant to the decision in several writ petitions on the basis of the judgment in the case of Pramod Bhandari (supra), a proposal was forwarded by the Director, Mines and Geology, for treating work-charged employees to be members of service under the Rules of 1957. Thereafter, noticing that the Rules of 1957 were repealed by promulgation of the new Rules of 1999, but there is no provision of regularization under the Rules of 1999, a subsequent proposal was sent on 24.01.2018 to the Government (respondent No.1). 13. After promulgation of the Rules of 1999 on 31.05.1999, all rules and orders were superseded, but a repeal and saving clause in Rule 45 clearly indicated that any action taken or under or in pursuance of such existing rules and orders shall be deemed to have been taken under Rules of 1999. Rule 46 further empowers the administrative department of government to relax the rules. 14. S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 35/2018, Mohammad Riyaz Abbasi versus Arpana Arora (supra), and a bunch of petitions were filed by some of the petitioners with the grievance that the petitioners were treated as appointees under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Services [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (24 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] Rules, 1957, from the date they were conferred semi- permanent status under the Mines and Geology Work- Charged Employees Service Conditions Order, 1974. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, while considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners on 14.05.2018, observed that it is prima facie apparent that there was non-compliance of the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by this Court. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on the request of the Advocate General on 11.09.2018, but on 19.12.2018, a Coordinate Bench disposed of a bunch of contempt petitions, observing substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court. 15. For ready reference, the order dated 19.12.2018 in contempt petition No.35/2018 is reproduced hereunder: “This bunch of contempt petitions has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order passed by this court on 2.2.2017. It is stated that petitioners were initially appointed on daily wages basis some where in the year 1980. It was shown to be under the Mines & Geology Work- charged Employees (Service Conditions) Order, 1974 (for short ‘the Order of 1974’). It was made effective from 15.1.1975 but was never notified. The petitioners were later on declared semi-permanent under the Order of 1974. Since the Order of 1974 was not notified, a litigation came before this court. It was first before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur followed by the present litigation. This court gave directions to treat the petitioners to be under the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short ‘the Rules of 1957’) instead of the [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (25 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] Order of 1974. The writ petitions were allowed with grant of consequential benefits to the petitioners. The respondents issued an order in compliance of the judgment of this court but instead of treating the petitioners to be Lower Division Clerks (LDC) from the date of their initial appointment, it was given from the date they were declared semi-permanent. In view of the above, compliance of the order has not been made. It is also that consequential benefits in terms of selection scale and other benefits, which includes pensionary benefits have not been given by treating their services from the date of appointment. Learned Advocate General Mr NM Lodha has contested the contempt petitions. He submits that substantial compliance of the judgment has been made. A reference of the order passed by this court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Pramod Bhandari & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No.1646/2013, decided on 6.5.2016 has been given. It has been applied in this case. The order in compliance of the judgment was passed on 28.3.2018. The consequential monetary benefits could not be given due to confusion created by the petitioners. They are claiming benefits from the initial date of appointment, whereas, no such direction has been given by the court. The respondents thus made an application to seek clarification before the Principal Seat, Jodhpur. The application has not yet been decided thus these contempt petitions were adjourned from time to time by the co- ordinate Bench. It is submitted that even the order sought to be complied does not give direction to extend benefit from the initial date of appointment, rather, direction [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (26 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] is to treat the petitioners under the Rules of 1957 instead of the Order of 1974. It is not even with the direction for giving a particular post or the pay scale yet the State Government took a decision to treat the petitioners as LDC from the date they were declared semi-permanent. If strict interpretation of the order of this court would have been taken then daily wager would have been subjected to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1957, as amended. They have made compliance of the order in true spirit. Consequential benefits in terms of monetary benefits would be given to the petitioners within a period of one month from today without waiting for outcome of the application for clarification preferred by the State before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. It is also stated that the order issued by the State Government shows their intention and otherwise they have made substantial compliance of the order. Hence, prayer is made to dismiss all the contempt petitions. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The writ petitions preferred by the petitioners were disposed of by applying the directions given in bunch of writ petitions decided by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. The operative portion of the order is quoted hereunder for ready reference -“9.In view of the above, the above noted writ petitions are allowed and it is directed that the respondents should treat the petitioners as having been appointed under the Rules of 1957 instead of treating [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (27 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] their appointment under the Order of 1974, which was never notified. All consequential benefits that accrue to the petitioners be released to the petitioners while treating them to be governed under the Rules of 1957.” The order was passed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur has been applied on the petitioners. The direction was to treat the petitioners to be appointed under the Rules of 1957 instead of Order of 1974 with consequential benefits. It is not with the direction that petitioners would be treated to have been appointed on regular basis as LDC despite their appointment on daily rate basis. The petitioners are yet given the status of LDC from the date they were declared semi-permanent. If the rules of 1957 are also perused, it provides for absorption of Nakedar and semi-permanent work charged employee, as referred in the judgment, sought to be complied. So far as daily wagers are concerned, a provision exist for their absorption on regular basis. It was brought by way of amendment. The direction of the court was not to absorb the petitioners on the post of LDC yet they would be taken on the aforesaid post but it is made clear that in the screening pursuant to the order dated 28.3.2018, only eligibility would be seen. On taking them on the post of LDC, benefits would be given and it is within a period of month from today thus I find substantial compliance of the order of this court. For passing typing test, sufficient attempts would be given. However, while disposing of the contempt petitions, liberty is given to the petitioners that if anything remains in terms of grant of selection scale or [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (28 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] pensionary benefits etc, they would be free to seek remedies for it. This order will not come in their way. Their claims would be determined as per the provisions of law. The notices of contempt are discharged. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.” 16. Considering the order passed by a Coordinate Bench as reproduced hereinabove, it clearly indicates that the respondents cannot treat the petitioners as appointees under the Order of 1974, as these rules never came into existence, since they were never notified by the respondents. The petitioners are entitled for initial appointment only under the Rules of 1957 and subsequently under the Rules of 1999. 17. A perusal of the orders placed on record clearly indicates that temporary or ad-hoc or daily wager employees appointed in other departments of the Government were regularized from the date of initial appointment. Annexure- R/1 dated 18.11.2018 clearly indicate action of respondentas contrary to the order passed in the case of Pramod Bhandari (supra), as there is reference of the Order of 1974. It is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the respondents have issued the order dated 18.04.2018 contrary to the order passed in the case of Pramod Bhandari (supra) and the respondents have not made substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court. 18. Annexure-R/2 dated 15.05.2019 and Annexure-R/3 dated 06.05.2019 indicate that pursuant to the order passed in the case of Pramod Bhandari (supra), the DPCs were [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (29 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] convened to accord promotion on basis of seniority-cum- merit to the eligible persons. The respondents have further placed on record the order dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure-4) to show that some of the petitioners were promoted in the pay scale of Level-11. The only dispute is date of initial appointment under the Rules of 1957. 19. The objection in consideration of these writ petitions is that the satisfaction has already been recorded by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.12.2018 while deciding a bunch of petitions, i.e., S.B. Civil Contempt Petitions led by Mohammad Riyaz Abbasi and others (supra). The order dated 19.12.2018, which has been reproduced hereinabove, indicate that a Coordinate Bench has recorded substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court while disposing of the contempt petitions, and liberty was granted to the petitioners, only in terms of grant of selection scale or pensionary benefits to avail the remedy available under the law. 20. In the case of Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Others versus Ved Prakash Joshi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the case of K.G. Dhiraj versus Union of India, (2001) 10 SCC 496, has observed that while dealing with an appliction for contempt, the Court is concerned with the question as to whether the decision which has attained finality has been complied with or not. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is concerned with the question of contemptuous conduct of the party who is [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (30 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions of the orders. 21. No doubt about the purpose of contempt proceedings, as to uphold the authority and dignity of the Court and ensuring that the administration of justice remains unimpeded, same is pursued. Any disobedience of a Court order or any act which undermines the dignity and decorum of the Court gives rise to initiation of contempt proceedings. Non- compliance of the directions contained in an order of the Court constitutes contempt only if it involves wilful disobedience. 22. In the instant case, for alleged non-compliance, a contempt petition was filed; however, after recording substantial compliance, the contempt petitions were disposed of on 19.12.2018. In the present case, the petitioners have filed the writ petitions being aggrieved of treating their initial appointment under the work-charged Order of 1974, which was neither implemented, nor notified. The claim of the petitioners is to treat them under the Rules of 1957 from the date of their initial appointment. The order passed in the case of Pramod Bhandari (supra) is in favour of the petitioners, which clearly declared the proposition that the petitioners are to be treated as members of service under the Rules of 1957 from their initial date of appointment, meaning thereby that the petitioners had never remained members under the Work-Charged Order of 1974, as the same is not applicable to them. [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (31 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] 23. This Court has already passed orders in favour of the petitioners and now, if the respondents have failed to take any action pursuant to the orders passed in favour of the petitioners, then that does not give rise to filing of subsequent writ petitions to challenge the orders passed by the respondents, otherwise, there would be endless litigation. 24. In the present case, the our limitation is only to consider the case of the present petitioners for compliance of the initial order passed in the case of Pramod Bhandari (supra). A satisfaction recorded by a Coordinate Bench on 19.12.2018 clearly indicates substantial compliance of the order passed in the case of Pramod Bhandari (supra) and Mohammad Riyaz Abbasi (supra). 25. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the contentions of the petitioners that the respondents have issued orders contrary to the judgment passed in the cases of Pramod Bhandari (supra) and Mohammad Riyaz Abbasi and Others (supra), treating the present petitioners as work- charged employees under the Order of 1974, are not tenable, therefore, the petitioners cannot pursue the remedy by filing independent and subsequent writ petitions. Thus, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, however, they are at liberty to pursue remedy of contempt or recall, if any available under the law. 26. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, these writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [2026:RJ-JP:3579] (32 of 32) [CW-13915/2019] 27. A copy of this order be placed separately in each of of the writ petitions. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /161-177 and C1 to C3