[2026:RJ-JP:4073] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16630/2025 Bhanwar Lal S/o Khooba Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Swami Ki Dhani, Tehsil-Devipura, Ward No. 18, Distt-Sikar, Raj Presently Residing At Plot No. 20, Hanuman Vatika Near Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Jhotwara, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Raj, Secretarait, Jaipur Raj. 2. The Deputy Secretary To Government, Department Of Personnel Kh-2, Government Of Raj. Secretariat Jaipur Raj. 3. The Asstt. Secretary Cum Disciplinary Authority, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Raj, Secretariat Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 29/01/2026 1. The present petition is filed seeking the following relief: “(i) By the writ of certiorari, order or direction, the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 (Annexure-1) by which the service for the period from 17.06.1995 to 25.04.2012 were held dias non be declared illegal and the petitioner may be held entitled for actual benefits of pay and allowances and promotion. (ii) That the order dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure-9) may be quashed and set aside and petitioner be held entitled for increments and revision of pay and allowances for the period held DIES NON along with interest @9% per annum. (iii) Any other order as this Hon’ble court may deem proper in the facts and [2026:RJ-JP:4073] (2 of 3) [CW-16630/2025] circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justices.” 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, it is noted that the petitioner would fall under the definition of ‘government servant’, as prescribed under Section 2(c) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act 1976 (for short “Act of 1976”), and the lis in question is also covered under the definition of ‘service matters’, as prescribed under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976, which has been given a wide meaning by Division Bench of this Court in Jahangir Ali Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (DBSAW No. 662/2022; decided on 25.05.2022). 3. The exercise of writ jurisdiction is fundamentally discretionary in nature. The limitations placed on Court's decision to exercise or refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction are self- imposed. Although learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contends that existence of an alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not create an absolute bar on maintainability of writ petition nor does it alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction, but it remains a discretion nonetheless. Therefore, since an alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 4. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short “RAT”) for redressal of his grievance. If the petitioner files appropriate petition before the [2026:RJ-JP:4073] (3 of 3) [CW-16630/2025] RAT within a period of fortnight, the RAT shall adjudicate the same on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months, upon duly condoning the delay. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/58