[2026:RJ-JP:25693] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7637/2018 URN: CW / 12655U / 2018 Arpita Vyas D/o Naresh Vyas, R/o 40, Sriram Colony, Pratapnagar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary-Cum- Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh 3. The District Elementary Education Officer, Chittorgarh 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur 5. The District Elementary Education Officer, Jodhpur 6. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh 7. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bilara, District Jodhpur 8. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh 9. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bilara, District Jodhpur 10. The Paden Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Bhawi, Panchayat Samiti Bilara, District Jodhpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. parteek Saxena for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 08/07/2026 1. An application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer that the petition be disposed of in the light of Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur in Praveen kumar Yadav [2026:RJ-JP:25693] (2 of 3) [CW-7637/2018] Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9500/2007 (decided on 24.08.2016). 2. In Praveen Kumar Yadav's case (supra), the Court, while dealing with a similar issue, held as under: "It is manifest from reading of the second proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules that the pay of the government servant who was already in regular service of the State and has been appointed as probationer trainee for a period of two years on or after 20.01.2006 shall be protected. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner is to be protected as he was already a government servant when he was appointed as Teacher Grade-III at Ajmer District vide order dated 23.03.2005. Indisputably, there is no break in the service of the petitioner and he was working at Ajmer before joining at subsequent place of posting at Alwer in terms of the later advertisement. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to protect the pay of the petitioner in terms of Rule 24." 3. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the fact that the issue in question stands covered by the ratio as laid down in Praveen Kumar Yadav's case (supra). 4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of ratio laid down in Praveen Kumar Yadav's case (supra). The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising out of the same. 5. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the present order. 6. Application No. (1/2026) stands disposed of. [2026:RJ-JP:25693] (3 of 3) [CW-7637/2018] 7. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 24/RAHUL