Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Inder Singh Saini vs State Of Raj And Ors (2026:Rj-Jp:7855) on 19 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:7855]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9452/2005
Inder Singh Saini S/o. Shri Ratna Ram, Village And Post Chirawal
Mali, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary
3. District Collector, Bharatpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Singhal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umesh Choudhary for
Mr. V.D. Gathala
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Reportable Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 17/02/2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 17/02/2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 19/02/2026
1. The petitioner has sought the following relief in the instant
writ petition:-
“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may
kindly pleased accepted and allowed:-
(i) and respondents are directed to grant the
benefit of selection scale for the 9 years and 18
years of service to the petitioner from the date of
initial appointment.
(ii) and it is further directed to respondent that
grant all the annual grade increment to the
petitioner in the regular pay scale which are
revised and sanctioned time to time right from the(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:36:37 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 03:05:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7855] (2 of 4) [CW-9452/2005]date of initial appointment with all consequential
benefits and pay the arrears of the amounts.
(iii) Any other relief and appropriate order which
this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may
kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner
was appointed as a Patwari through an ad hoc order dated
05.04.1980 and he successfully qualified the written examination.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserts that the
petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the selection scale and
retiral benefits from the date of his ad hoc appointment.
Furthermore, he contends that, pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Land Revenue Rules’), individuals with fifteen
years of service are exempted from the Patwar Examination and
have been granted the selection scale and service benefits from
their initial appointment date.
4. Counsel representing the petitioner also cites the following
judgments in support:-
1. Gordhan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1809 of 1990)
2. Jamaluddin Vs. State of Rajasthan
(D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.530/2018)
(D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.58/2004)
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents counters
that the petitioner is ineligible for the selection-scale benefits for
9, 18, and 27 years of service from the date of his ad hoc
appointment, as his services were regularised on 14.09.2004 i.e.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:36:37 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 03:05:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7855] (3 of 4) [CW-9452/2005]
after qualifies the written examination, in accordance with the
circular dated 01.03.2000.
6. After thoroughly reviewing the pertinent rules, laws, and
circulars, and after hearing the arguments presented, the Court is
inclined to deny the petition for the following reasons:-
7. Firstly, the petitioner’s appointment was on ad hoc basis, and
he was regularised in the year 2004. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Surendra Mohnot
& Ors., 2014 (14) SCC 77, clarified that individual appointed on
ad hoc, daily-wage, or work-charged service does not accrue
benefits related to time-bound pay unless explicitly provided for in
the recruitment rules. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.
Surendra Mohnot & Ors. (supra), reaffirming the decision in the
case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi
2009 (12) SCC 49, the Supreme Court unambiguously held that
stagnation benefits were granted from the date of regularisation,
in the context of government orders dated 25th January, 1992, and
17th February, 1998. The Court also specifically noted the language
used in circulars about the appointment for the existing
cadre/service.
8. Furthermore, the Court established that a candidate seeking
regular appointment must satisfy four conditions: (a) the
appointment must be in a substantive capacity; (b) it must be to a
post within the service or substantive vacancy; (c) the
appointment must adhere to the rules; and (d) it must be within
the quota prescribed for the source. An ad hoc appointment is
always to a post rather than a cadre or service, and it is not
executed in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules for
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:36:37 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 03:05:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7855] (4 of 4) [CW-9452/2005]
regular appointment. Therefore, although the term ‘regular’ was
not explicitly used in paragraph 3 of the Government order dated
25th January, 1992, it still implicitly necessitated a regular
appointment complied with statutory recruitment rules. The
Supreme Court further clarified that what was implicit in the
government order was made explicit through the clarification
(Finance Department Order) dated 3rd April, 1993.
9. Secondly, the circulars issued by the Finance Department
consistently emphasised that only employees with regular
appointments are eligible for benefits related to 9, 18, and 27
years of service, explicitly excluding ad hoc or temporary
employees. The rationale for this distinction is evident, as ad hoc
or temporary positions are filled on an as-needed basis. Moreover,
their regularisation is contingent upon passing the written
examination prescribed under Rule 4 of the Land Revenue Rules
applicable to the petitioner.
10. The judgments cited by the petitioner’s counsel are rendered
irrelevant by the legal principles established in State of Rajasthan
Vs. Surendra Mohnot (supra).
11. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
Ramesh Vaishnav/86
162
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:36:37 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 03:05:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
