[2026:RJ-JP:3179-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1138/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11906/2025 Govind Narayan Chaudhary S/o Shri Ram Kishore, aged about 34 years, R/o Village And Post Khidgi, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk Rajasthan, presently working at 9th Bn (F) Company District Tonk Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur. 3. ADGP (Armed Batalion) Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur Rajasthan. 4. The Commandant 8th Bn RAC, F-Company, Tonk Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sudesh Kasana For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA JUDGMENT 23/01/2026 Oral 1. The present appeal challenges the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 21.05.2025 which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 12.08.2025. [2026:RJ-JP:3179-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1138/2025] 2. The brief facts which need to be noticed are that the appellant is a Constable and has been working in the 9th Battalion RAC. The appellant was appointed and joined on 02.03.2015 and completed his two years service on 03.03.2017. Ordinarily, he would have been affirmed and placed on regular pay-scale on completion of two years. However, he has taken 70 days Extra Ordinary Leave (‘EOL’) and therefore, his probation period was extended by three months. Resultantly, he was confirmed vide order dated 26.09.2017 with effect from 12.08.2017. 3. After having been confirmed and allowed to work, the appellant filed an appeal in 2025 claiming that the order of 26.09.2017 deserves to be modified, so far as he is concerned and his confirmation order should be immediately after he had completed 70 days of EOL i.e. from 12.05.2017 instead of 12.08.2017. 4. The Tribunal having considered the aspects, reached to the conclusion that the claim is highly belated, as it has been filed after a period of almost seven years and six months. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on merits. However, dissatisfied the writ petition was filed before this Court and the learned Single Judge also found that there is no explanation whatsoever for the alleged delay of raising claim after seven years and six months relating to the confirmation order. Having accepted the same, without any demur the Court upheld the order of the Tribunal against which the present appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a pragmatic approach should have been adopted and grievance which was raised only when the appellant realised that he would be deprived [2026:RJ-JP:3179-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1138/2025] of grant of ACP for one year on account of change from 12.05.2017 to 12.08.2017, the challenge was raised. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on merits the appellant has the case as only 70 days EOL period could have been deducted for the purpose of confirming the appellant. Learned counsel also relies on the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Anita Devi Kansara (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in [2004 Volume 4 Raj. RLW 2351] wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed as under:- “The law is a dynamic science, it is not static. The purpose of law is to serve the needs of life. In following the law the RCSAT should respond to the clarion call of social imperatives and evolve in that process functional approach as means to sub-serve “social promises” set out in the Preamble Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of India. The RCSAT is expected to adopt the purpositive approach to consider scheme of 1976 Act. Meticulous lexicographic analysis of words and phrases and sentences should be subordinate to their purposive approach. The dynamics of the interpretative functioning of the RCSAT is to reflect the contemporary needs and the prevailing values consistent with the legislative declaration of the scheme envisaged in 1976 Act.” 7. Having notice the submissions, we find that there is an unexplained delay on the part of the appellant. He has taken extraordinary leave during the period when he was on probation. 8. Taking a lenient view, as his probation period was extended by three months apart from deducting the 70 days of extraordinary leave. Thus, he was confirmed as a Constable vide order dated 26.09.2017 with effect from 12.08.2017. At the [2026:RJ-JP:3179-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1138/2025] relevant time, the appellant was satisfied with the order and continued to perform his duties without any demur. After seven years and six months, he could not have raised a dispute relating to an order which had attained finality. The Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have, therefore, correctly interpreted the law and rejected the claim. Even otherwise, we find that the claim of grant of ACP can only be from the date of confirmation. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ PUNEET KUMAR /9