Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1612 (RAJ)

Paras S/o Himtaram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-10-10

FARJAND ALI

body2025
ORDER : 1. By way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to treat his date of joining as 22.06.2017, to grant regularization in service with effect from the same date and to revise his first annual grade increment along with fixation of basic pay at Rs. 45,600/- with effect from 01.07.2019 instead of 01.07.2020. The petitioner further seeks all consequential benefits flowing from such revision. The petitioner contends that the delay in joining was occasioned solely due to administrative lapse on the part of the respondents. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and, upon selection, was appointed on 19.06.2017 and posted to Government Senior Secondary School, Chadvas, District Pali. He duly presented himself for joining on 22.06.2017, but the Principal reported that no sanctioned post of Lecturer (Hindi) existed at the school, resulting in his being refused joining and returned to the disposal of respondent No.1. A fresh posting order dated 02.07.2017 placed him at Government Senior Secondary School, Sojat City, where he assumed charge on 04.07.2017, and his joining was formally intimated on 12.07.2017. His services were later regularized w.e.f. 04.07.2017 by order dated 22.07.2019, and the Principal’s subsequent order dated 23.07.2019 accorded him regular pay scale while fixing his first increment as 01.07.2020. Although appointed along with 2841 candidates under the same order, the petitioner alone suffered postponement of increment due to the respondents’ administrative error in posting him initially where no vacancy existed. Under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017, notified on 30.10.2017, he would have been entitled to his first annual increment on 01.07.2019 had his joining on 22.06.2017 been accepted. He submitted representations on 05.08.2019, 26.08.2019, and 13.09.2019 seeking correction of his joining and increment dates, but no action ensued, compelling him to approach this Court by way of filing the instant Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner had duly reported for joining on 22.06.2017, yet he was not permitted to assume charge solely because the respondents had erroneously posted him to an institution where no sanctioned vacancy of Lecturer (Hindi) existed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner had duly reported for joining on 22.06.2017, yet he was not permitted to assume charge solely because the respondents had erroneously posted him to an institution where no sanctioned vacancy of Lecturer (Hindi) existed. Had the petitioner been allowed to join on 22.06.2017, as he was rightfully entitled to, he would have completed the requisite period of service prior to 01.07.2019 and, in terms of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017, would have been eligible for grant of the first annual grade increment on 01.07.2019. However, owing exclusively to the administrative lapse of the respondents, a subsequent posting order dated 02.07.2017 was issued, transferring him from Chadvas to Sojat, resulting in his actual joining being deferred to 04.07.2017. 3.1. Counsel further submitted that several candidates similarly situated, who were also issued fresh postings under the order dated 02.07.2017, were permitted to join even in the absence of clear vacancies and were consequently treated as having joined prior to 01.07.2017, thereby securing their annual increment from 01.07.2019. The petitioner alone was denied comparable treatment despite having presented himself for duty in a timely and diligent manner. Thus, the prejudice suffered by the petitioner is solely the consequence of administrative mismanagement, and not of any lapse attributable to him. Had he been permitted to join at Chadvas in pursuance of the order dated 19.06.2017, no dispute whatsoever would have arisen and he would have been entitled to parity with his batchmates. 3.2. It was further argued that no legitimate impediment existed to accepting the petitioner’s joining on 22.06.2017, as even the report of respondent No.3 disclosed no valid ground for refusing him joining. The action of the respondents in first denying him joining and thereafter fixing his increment date as 01.07.2020, instead of 01.07.2019, is ex facie arbitrary, discriminatory vis-à- vis similarly situated candidates, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has consequently suffered significant and recurring financial loss throughout his service career for no fault of his own. 3.3. In conclusion, learned counsel urged that the writ petition be allowed, the petitioner’s joining be treated as 22.06.2017, his increment date be revised to 01.07.2019, and all consequential monetary and service benefits be granted accordingly. 4. The petitioner has consequently suffered significant and recurring financial loss throughout his service career for no fault of his own. 3.3. In conclusion, learned counsel urged that the writ petition be allowed, the petitioner’s joining be treated as 22.06.2017, his increment date be revised to 01.07.2019, and all consequential monetary and service benefits be granted accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is bereft of merit, as the reliefs sought; treating the petitioner’s joining as 22.06.2017, granting regularization from 22.06.2019, and revising the increment date to 01.07.2019, are wholly incompatible with the statutory scheme. It was argued that Rule 13 (2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 mandates that a new recruit becomes entitled to his first annual increment only on the 1st of July following completion of probation, and the petitioner, having actually joined on 04.07.2017, cannot claim eligibility for increment on 01.07.2019. 4.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal under the 1976 Act, which he has bypassed by directly invoking the writ jurisdiction. As the petitioner’s assertions involve disputed questions of fact including the circumstances of non-joining at the initial posting—the same can be appropriately adjudicated only by the competent Tribunal. On these premises, counsel urged that the writ petition deserves outright dismissal. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and minutely gone through the entire material placed on record. 5.1. Upon meticulous consideration of the pleadings, the documents placed on record, and the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the firm opinion that the grievance of the petitioner is well-founded and warrants interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5.2. At the threshold, certain material facts stand incontrovertible. The petitioner, having been duly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, was appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) vide order dated 19.06.2017 and directed to report at Government Senior Secondary School, Chadvas. In faithful compliance with the appointment order, the petitioner presented himself for joining on 22.06.2017, thereby fulfilling all obligations incumbent upon him under the service rules. The Principal, however, refused to accept his joining on the sole ground that no sanctioned post of Lecturer (Hindi) existed at the said school. The petitioner was thus compelled to remain idle, awaiting further directions from the respondents. 5.3. The Principal, however, refused to accept his joining on the sole ground that no sanctioned post of Lecturer (Hindi) existed at the said school. The petitioner was thus compelled to remain idle, awaiting further directions from the respondents. 5.3. It is manifest from the record that the petitioner’s inability to assume charge from 22.06.2017 was not attributable to any default, delay, or omission on his part. Instead, it emanated exclusively from the respondents’ own administrative lapse in posting him to an institution bereft of a sanctioned vacancy. The subsequent order dated 02.07.2017, transferring him to Government Senior Secondary School, Sojat City, was, therefore, not a routine administrative adjustment but a correction necessitated by the respondents’ earlier error. Only pursuant to this corrective order did the petitioner join on 04.07.2017. 5.4. In view of these undisputed events, the Court finds that the delay between 22.06.2017 and 04.07.2017 cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be fastened upon the petitioner. It is well-settled that where an employee places himself at the disposal of the employer but is prevented from joining due to circumstances created by the employer, he cannot be denied the legal consequences attached to the original joining date. To hold otherwise would amount to allowing the employer to derive advantage from its own wrong. 5.5. This brings to the fore the classical equitable maxim “ commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet ” means no man may take advantage of his own wrong. The Apex Court, in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar , (2007) 11 SCC 447, elucidated this doctrine in emphatic terms, holding that a party cannot be permitted to benefit from a situation brought about by its own wrongful or negligent act. The Supreme Court emphasized that he who prevents something from being done cannot later invoke the non-performance as a ground to deny relief. This principle, deeply embedded in both equity and jurisprudence, applies with full force to the present case. 5.6. The respondents’ attempt to treat the petitioner’s joining as 04.07.2017, and thereby defer his annual increment to 01.07.2020, effectively enables them to profit from their own administrative misfeasance. Such an approach is legally impermissible and constitutionally abhorrent. Moreover, it stands established on record that other candidates, similarly appointed under the same order and subsequently reposted on 02.07.2017, were permitted to join even at institutions where sanctioned posts were unavailable. Such an approach is legally impermissible and constitutionally abhorrent. Moreover, it stands established on record that other candidates, similarly appointed under the same order and subsequently reposted on 02.07.2017, were permitted to join even at institutions where sanctioned posts were unavailable. They have been accorded benefits from 01.07.2019 on the premise that they were notionally treated as having joined prior to the cut-off date. The singling out of the petitioner for adverse treatment, in contrast to his batchmates, is manifestly discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5.7. The respondents’ argument that Rule 13 (2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 warrants grant of increment only on 01 July following completion of probation is entirely misplaced in the present factual scenario. The petitioner had complied with his obligation to report on 22.06.2017. The respondents’ own wrongful action in refusing him joining cannot shift the statutory timeline to his detriment. The statutory scheme cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats substantive rights on account of administrative lapses of the employer. 5.8. As regards the objection on maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, the Court is unable to accept the respondents’ contention. The issue herein does not involve complex factual disputes requiring detailed evidentiary adjudication but rather concerns undisputed facts coupled with a pure question of law relating to the legal consequence of the petitioner’s timely reporting for duty. Where arbitrariness, discrimination, and infringement of constitutional guarantees stand prima facie established, this Court is not precluded from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely on account of the availability of an alternate remedy. 5.9. For the reasons elucidated herein, this Court clearly holds that the petitioner must be deemed to have effectively joined service on 22.06.2017, the date on which he indisputably presented himself for duty. Consequently, he is entitled to the grant of his first annual grade increment from 01.07.2019, along with appropriate fixation of pay and all consequential service benefits. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner’s date of joining for all service-related purposes as 22.06.2017. Consequent thereto, the petitioner shall be entitled to his first annual grade increment with effect from 01.07.2019, along with fixation of basic pay at Rs. 45,600/- from the same date. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner’s date of joining for all service-related purposes as 22.06.2017. Consequent thereto, the petitioner shall be entitled to his first annual grade increment with effect from 01.07.2019, along with fixation of basic pay at Rs. 45,600/- from the same date. The order dated 23.07.2019, to the extent it fixes the petitioner’s increment and basic pay from 01.07.2020, is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential monetary and service benefits, including arrears of salary and allowances arising from the revised date of joining and increment, to be computed and disbursed by the respondents within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Necessary corrections shall be made in his service record. The respondents are directed to implement this order forthwith. No order as to costs. 6.1. The stay petition also stands disposed of.