[2026:RJ-JP:1952] (1 of 4) [CW-20716/2025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20716/2025 Hanuman Sahai Sharma S/o Lallu Ram Shrama, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village And Post Sikrai, Hingwala Mohalla, Dausa (Raj.), Retired Assistant Administrative Officer ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest, Govt. Of Raj. Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Rajasthan, Van Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. The Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Dausa (Rajasthan). 4. Treasurer, Dausa 5. Sub-Treasurer Sikrai, District Dausa 6. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch Sikrai (31049) District Dausa 7. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Pension Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma Mr. Punit Singhvi Mr. Sangat Roy For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal Mr. M.S. Raghav Mr. R.D. Meena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 16/01/2026 1. On 12.01.2026, this Court has formulated an issue which reads as under:- "Issue: Whether a retired or superannuated Government servant is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate [2026:RJ-JP:1952] (2 of 4) [CW-20716/2025] Tribunal under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976, in respect of grievances relating to pension, retiral benefits, or other service matters, or the only remedy in case of any grievance and/or assailing the order impugned is invoking the writ jurisdiction of High Court." 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the Bar at large marked its presence to address the issue so formulated by this Court. 3. Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma, Mr. Punit Singhvi, Mr. Sangat Roy, Mr. Ashok Bansal, Mr. M.S. Raghav, Mr. R.D. Meena, along with other learned members of the Bar, appeared and addressed arguments on the said issue. 4. Learned counsel placed reliance upon Section 2(c) of the Act of 1976, which defines the expression “Government Servant,” and Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976, which defines “Service Matters,” the relevant portion whereof was also read out and relied upon. “Section 2 (c) - Government Servant means a person who is a member of a service or who holds as civil post under the State of Rajasthan and includes any such person who has been placed at the disposal of a local authority or any other authority. Section 2 (f) - Service Matters means all matters relating to the conditions of service of a Government Servant and includes- (i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure, including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; [2026:RJ-JP:1952] (3 of 4) [CW-20716/2025] (iii) disciplinary matters; (iv) any other matter whatsoever relating to conditions of service of a Government servant.” 5. On the strength of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is submitted that by virtue of the Act of 1976, jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Tribunal in respect of service matters as enumerated under Section 2(f). It is further contended that in terms of Section 2(c), which defines “Government Servant,” retired persons are specifically included within its ambit. It was submitted that there exists no express exclusion under the Act barring retired employees from invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is also urged that there is no absolute restriction confining such jurisdiction only to serving employees. Rather, the explicit use of the expressions “pension” and “retired employees” in Sections 2(c) and 2(f) categorically clarifies the legislative intent and leaves no manner of doubt with regard to the maintainability of proceedings relating to service matters of retired employees before the Tribunal. 6. In view of the aforesaid statutory scheme and submissions advanced, this Court clarifies that in respect of retired persons of the State Government who fall within the definition of “Government Servant,” an efficacious alternate remedy is available under the Act. Consequently, unless and until exceptional circumstances are demonstrated so as to warrant deviation from the rule of alternate remedy, appeals pertaining to service matters of retired persons shall be maintainable before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (RAT). 7. The issue is answered accordingly. [2026:RJ-JP:1952] (4 of 4) [CW-20716/2025] Qua the merits of the case:- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a retired employee against whom recovery proceedings have been initiated after an inordinate delay of thirteen years. It is contended that such recovery has been commenced straightaway without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and that the amount in question has been recovered directly from the petitioner’s bank account. Heard and considered. Having regard to the facts of the case and the overall circumstances placed before this Court, and taking note of the availability of an efficacious alternate statutory remedy, as also discussed herein above, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner files an appeal before the concerned Tribunal, the Tribunal shall consider and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ninety days from the date of filing of the appeal. Further, it is made clear that till the appeal is filed, i.e., within a period of seven days from the date of passing of this order, no further coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /63