Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 819 (RAJ)

Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-17

DINESH MEHTA

body2025
Order : 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- “(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to provide annual grade increments to the petitioner in terms of the statutory provisions and circulars on notional basis counting his services from 31.05.2004 and actual benefits from February, 2017. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may also be directed to count the services of the petitioner from 2004 for the purpose of A.C.P. and release all benefits in the form of arrears alongwith 18% interest rate. (iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to pay all the services benefits of the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 04.04.2019 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10333/2017 : Mohhamad Umer Rangrej Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3. Inviting Court’s attention towards the judgment dated 04.04.2019 passed in the case of Mohhamad Umer Rangrej (supra) and the circular dated 02.06.2020, Mr. Bissa, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner’s services is required to be taken notionally from the date of his appointment order i.e. 31.05.2004 and is entitled for actual monetary benefits when he has submitted certificate of RS-CIT course in the month of February, 2017. 4. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent – State submits that simply because the order of appointment does not contain a condition for clearing the typing test, the petitioner cannot avoid the condition mentioned in the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’) which in no ambiguous terms provides that a candidate has to acquire the eligibility and educational qualification as required for the post he is appointed. 5. Learned counsel argued that since the petitioner had acquired RS-CIT certificate in the month of February, 2017, he is entitled to all the benefits, including the benefits of annual grade increments. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 5. Learned counsel argued that since the petitioner had acquired RS-CIT certificate in the month of February, 2017, he is entitled to all the benefits, including the benefits of annual grade increments. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. According to this Court, simply because the appointment order does not contain a condition of clearing typing test which was the qualification prevailing when the petitioner was given appointment under the Rules of 1996, the petitioner cannot claim immunity from fulfilling such requirement – he has to acquire the basic qualification and Typing proficiency which is sine-qua-non for the appointment. But at the same time, since he had acquired the RS-CIT certificate in the month of February, 2017, he cannot be denied the benefit under condition No.6 of the circular dated 02.06.2020, which provides that an employee appointed under the Rules of 1996 shall be given notional increments until he clears typing test or acquires RS-CIT certificate. 8. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed as per clause No.(i) of the prayer. 9. The respondents are directed to consider petitioner’s appointment notionally from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 31.05.2004 and grant him the annual grade increments notionally up to February, 2017, whereafter he shall be entitled to actual benefits of increments in terms of the circular dated 02.06.2020 and other relevant circulars from time to time. 10. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.