[2026:RJ-JP:20224-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 456/2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.474/2026 Satish Prakash Gupta S/o Late Shri Syam Lal Gupta, Aged About 85 Years, Resident of House No. A-461, Talwandi, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Raj Yogi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Judgment 13/05/2026 1. Appellant-writ petitioner, who retired from the post of Deputy Director (Animal Husbandry Department) on 30.06.1997 has been declined entitlement of annual increment, payable to the Government servants in terms of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (for short, 'the Rules of 2008') in the light of the order dated 12.09.2024, issued by the Government of [2026:RJ-JP:20224-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-456/2026] Rajasthan, Finance Department in rem, to deal with the issue of grant of notional annual increment to the Governmet employees retiring on 30th June. This order dated 12.09.2024 was passed by Government of Rajasthan, in furtherance to the various decisions of Hon'ble Courts. Appellant-writ petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 474/2026, questioning the order of denial of annual increment to him vide order dated 15.09.2025 so also challenged the order dated 12.09.2024. His writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.02.2026, whereagainst instant Special Appeal has been preferred. 2. Counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been discriminated because learned Single Judge in case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21/2020 vide judgment dated 21.07.2023, directed to consider the case of writ petitioners for annual increment notionally and in the subsequent order passed in case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10930/2024, the judgment dated 21.07.2023 was declared to be in rem, hence, in furtherance to such direction, appellant is also entitled for the annual increment falling due on 1st July, 1997, but was not paid to him due to retirement on a date before i.e. 30.06.1997. A consequential prayer for revision of his pension has also been made. 3. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 has considered that the judgment in case of Vijay Singh (supra) was passed in the light of the Rules of 2008 and the benefit of annual increment was directed to be granted to all similarly situated Government employees. Since appellant-writ [2026:RJ-JP:20224-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-456/2026] petitioner had retired way back on 30.06.1997, much prior to coming into force of the Rules of 2008, hence, the benefit extended to the Government employees under these rules is not available to writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge also considered that in the order dated 12.09.2024, issued by the Government of Rajasthan, in furtherance to the decisions of Hon'ble Courts, including the judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed by High Court in rem in case of Vijay Singh (supra), the benefit of annual increment has been given to the Government servants who retired on 30.06.2006 following 30th June, thereafter whose increment becomes due on the next day following upon their retirement. It has been held by learned Single Judge that there is a rationality in making such a uniform scheme for all Government employees for grant of annual increment because the Rules of 2008 came in effect w.e.f. 30.06.2006. 4. Learned Single Judge considered the undisputed factual aspect that admittedly writ petitioner had retired way back on 30.06.1997 and held that he is not entitled to claim annual increment under the Rules of 2008 nor can claim parity with the other Government employees who retired on 30.06.2006, hence, there is no discrimination to him due to non-grant of benefit of annual increment. In addition to above, while we are not able to take a different view than opined by learned Single Judge, it is also noteworthy that appellant has not made out a case that any Government employees, who retired prior to 30.06.2006 has been given benefit of annual increment under the Rules of 2008 or in light of [2026:RJ-JP:20224-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-456/2026] judgment dated 21.07.2023, passed by the High Court in rem in case of Vijay Singh (supra). 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no interference is called for in the order of learned single judge dated 17.02.2026, consequently, instant Special Appeal is hereby dismissed. 6. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/9