[2026:RJ-JP:20214] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8178/2026 Ms. Sunita Goyal Daughter Of Late Shri Raghunath Prasad, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Nai Mandi, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Secretary Education, School Secondary Education, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 4. District Education Officer (Deo) (Hq Secondary), Secondary Deeg, Rajasthan. 5. Office Of District Education Officer (Headquarter Secondary), Bharatpur, Rajasthan. 6. Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/05/2026 1. Grievance raised by the petitioner is that only on account of the fact that the petitioner, on attaining age of superannuation, retired from service w.e.f. 31.03.2023, the annual grade increment otherwise admissible to the petitioner for the year 2022-2023 has not been granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon notification dated 09.12.2017 issued by the Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan in order to amend the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017, whereby existing sub-rule (1) of rule 13 was [2026:RJ-JP:20214] (2 of 2) [CW-8178/2026] substituted and it was mandated that there will be uniform date of annual grade increment i.e. 1st of July of every year and the employees who had completed 6 months and above in any level of pay matrix as on 1st July every year will be eligible for grant of annual increment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since, the petitioner completed services of around 9 months after 1st of July, 2022, therefore, in view of notification dated 09.12.2017, the petitioner is entitled for annual grade increment, which has been arbitrarily denied by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied, in case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a representation in the light of above notification dated 09.12.2017 for seeking redressal of his grievances. 4. In view of the limited prayer extended by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it just and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Competent Authority, who shall consider and decide the representation by speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /51