Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 381 (RAJ)

Pushpa Purohit v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-17

DINESH MEHTA

body2025
ORDER : (DINESH MEHTA, J.) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 Annex.1 may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside to the extent the services of the husband of the petitioner are computed for the purpose of grant of selection grade w.e.f. 01.04.1971 instead of 01.10.1965. The respondents may further be directed to:- (i) To grant the first selection grade by treating the up-gradation to the post of Meter Inspector as up-gradation only and not promotion, accordingly, revised the second and third selection grade the husband of the petitioner was entitle to receive with the coming into force the Rules of 25.01.1992. (ii) That after granting the first, second and third selection grade as prayed above, the respondents may kindly be directed to revised the pay of husband of the petitioner in the Revised Pay Rules including the Rules of 2008 in the pay scale of 9300-34800 with the grade pay of 4200/- and to pay all the arrears with interest @ 18% p.a. (iii) To issue revised pension order based upon the benefits allowed by revising the selection grade in the service of husband of the petitioner. (iv) Any other relief to which petitioner appears entitle to may kindly also be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Admittedly, Late Sh. Gauri Shankar Purohit - the husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the erstwhile government employee’) was appointed on the post of Meter Reader-I on 13.09.1965 and he had retired way back on 31.12.2007. That apart, he had passed away on 20.10.2018. 3. Now, the petitioner (widow of the erstwhile government employee) has raised a grievance that erstwhile government employee’s regularization ought to have been made w.e.f. 13.09.1965 and he should have been conferred benefits of selection grade on completion of 9-18-27 years from 13.09.1965 instead of 01.04.1971. 4. The petitioner before this Court is the widow of erstwhile government employee; who for the reasons best known to him did not choose to take up any legal proceedings. He has never raised any concern even after being retired on 31.12.2007. 5. According to this Court, petitioner’s endeavour to find fault with the State Government is highly belated. 4. The petitioner before this Court is the widow of erstwhile government employee; who for the reasons best known to him did not choose to take up any legal proceedings. He has never raised any concern even after being retired on 31.12.2007. 5. According to this Court, petitioner’s endeavour to find fault with the State Government is highly belated. The present writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches. 6. The writ petition and the stay application are, therefore, dismissed.