Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Sohanlal Jat S/O Shri Khetaram Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 May, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:20884]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14181/2023
Dr. Sadhana Kansal D/o Dr. Prahalad Singh Kansal, R/o 301, Raj
Regency, R.k. Nagar Near Ruchi Hospital, Bara Road Kota,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher
Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, College Education, Block-4, Shiksha Sankul,
Jln Marg-Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connected With
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14211/2014
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 365/2015
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8148/2017
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9287/2017
(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18971/2017
(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11075/2020
(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 170/2006
(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5349/2007
(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12452/2008
(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13511/2012
(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13512/2012
(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12156/2013
(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19835/2013
(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19836/2013
(15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2483/2014
(16) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8301/2014
(17) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10343/2015
(18) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17695/2015
(19) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6849/2016
(20) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11253/2018
(21) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4378/2019
(22) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10601/2019
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (2 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
(23) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13318/2024
(24) SB Civil Writ Petition No. 20430/2013
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.RN Mathur, Sr.Adv. With
Mr.Abhay Singh
Mr.Ajatshatru Mina
Mr.Movil Jeenwal
Mr.Himanshu Kala
Mr.Nripraj Singh
Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma
Mr.Tarun Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah, AAG with
Mr.Yash Joshi
Mr.Aditya Singh, Dy.GC
Mr.MF Baig
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved on :: 24/03/2025
Pronounced on :: 23/05/2025
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the core
controversy requiring adjudication predominantly pertains as to
whether the previous service rendered on temporary/ ad-hoc basis
can be counted for grant of benefit of Career Advancement Scheme
(herein after referred to as “CAS”). Although ancillary issues are
also raised, the principal question of law revolves around the
legality and validity of the impugned addendum and non-
consideration of the petitioners’ candidature for want of certain
eligibility conditions. Having regard to the commonality of issues
both in law and in fact, and with the consent of learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate
to treat SBCWP NO. 14181/2023 titled as Dr. Sadhana Kansal
Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. as the lead petition for the
purposes of this adjudication.
2. It is, however, considered apposite to clarify at the
outset that though the subject matter in the writ petitions is
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (3 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
substantially similar or pertains to an identical legal issue, the
factual matrix varies to some extent in each case. In certain writ
petitions, there are distinguishing features such as a break in the
continuity of service, the involvement of a previous employer
under private management, and issues concerning the recovery of
monetary benefits. These factual distinctions, while not altering the
core legal question, may have a bearing on the reliefs sought and
the adjudication of individual claims. They do not impinge upon or
detract from the common questions of law which fall for
consideration before this Court. Accordingly, the judgment
rendered herein shall apply to all the writ petitions connected and
heard together with the lead matter, on a mutatis mutandis basis,
subject to necessary adaptation to the individual factual contexts
where required.
3. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on
their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational facts
and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of the
factual matrix and procedural background as stated in the lead
petition is essential to contextualize the grievances of the
petitioners and the legal questions that fall for adjudication. For
instance the salient aspects and plea made that is vital for
adjudication as stated in the petitions are, therefore, stated and
summarized as under:
3.1 SBCWP No. 14181/2023 is filed for issuance of writ
in nature of mandamus or to direct the respondents to grant the
benefit of senior scale and selection scale under the CAS while
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (4 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]counting service from initial date of appointment and to revise the
pay of the petitioner accordingly.
3.1.1 The nitty-gritty of the matter is that the petitioner was
initially appointed on the post of lecturer (Sanskrit) on 07.07.1986
on temporary basis at Mohta College, Rajgarh Dist. Churu – a
private institution, which was renewed at various intervals.
Subsequently the petitioner was appointed on probation for two
years vide appointment letter dated 27.04.1989, and the service of
the petitioner was confirmed by the office letter dated 25.11.1991.
Despite the same the petitioner was not considered for CAS.
Resultantly a writ petition was filed by the petitioner (Sangeeta &
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Civil Writ Petition No.6793/2005)
which was decided by order dated 20.12.2011.
3.1.2 It is noted that the petitioner participated in the process
of regular recruitment pursuant to an advertisement issued by the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). Upon being duly
selected and found eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer
(Sanskrit), the petitioner was offered and accepted the
appointment. Consequently, the petitioner was formally appointed
and joined duties on 31.07.1996, at Shri Moha Lal Jalan
Government College, Ratangarh, Rajasthan. However, the
petitioner claimed benefit under the CAS, which was disagreed by
the respondents for the reason that the petitioner had resigned
from service for a specific period.
3.2 SBCWP No. 4378/2019 is filed assailing the actions of
the respondents whereby, they have not considered the ad-hoc
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (5 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
service period from 1995 to 1997 for granting of the benefit under
the CAS.
3.3 SBCWP No. 170/2006 is filed seeking directions for
consideration of the initial date of appointment of the petitioner for
further consideration of seniority and CAS.
3.4 SBCWP No. 17695/2015 is filed assailing the
impugned order dated 16.04.2015 whereby the benefit of senior
and selection scale was sanctioned to the petitioner therein, from
the year 1992 sans incorporation of technical break of 9 days in
service and without counting the period of service from the initial
date of appointment.
3.5 SBCWP No. 14211/2014 is filed seeking directions to
grant benefit of seniority and selection scale to the petitioner
under CAS from the date of his initial appointment and in context
of order passed by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Milap
Chand Jain & Ors.: SLP (Civil) No. 20363-20368/2013.
4. The petitioners were represented by various counsel,
who have unanimously submitted that during the course of service,
the University Grants Commission (UGC) introduced the Career
Advancement Scheme (CAS) for Lecturers, under which the benefit
of senior scale and selection grade is conferred upon completion of
the prescribed number of years of satisfactory and continuous
service.
5. In this context, it was submitted by learned Senior
counsel Mr. R.N. Mathur and learned counsel Mr. Ajatshatru Mina
that the issue at hand is no longer res integra, having been settled
through various Office Memoranda, Circulars, and Notifications
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (6 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
issued by the respondent authorities from time to time, and further
crystallized by authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Another vs.
Milap Chand Jain & Another, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 562.
It was contended that as per the said decision and the settled
proposition of law, the entire length of service rendered by the
petitioner, including the service rendered on an ad-hoc or
probationary basis, and even if such service was under a private
management, is required to be taken into consideration for the
purpose of determining eligibility and calculation of benefits under
the CAS framework.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submitted that the All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE) does not differentiate between regular/substantive
appointments and other forms of employment for the purpose of
extending benefits under the CAS. In support of this contention,
reliance was placed upon the Government of Rajasthan’s order
dated 01.05.1989 (Annexure No. P/7), whereby CAS was directed
to be implemented in accordance with the norms prescribed by the
University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UGC”).
Further reliance was placed upon the UGC Guidelines of the year
1998 and 2010, which govern the eligibility and procedural
framework for advancement under CAS.
7. To buttress the petitioner’s claim, learned counsel
placed reliance upon several judicial precedents, inter alia, State
of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Dr. Ramnarayan Jha: DB Special
Appeal (Writ) No.1275/2022, Dr. Navneet Verma & Ors. Vs.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (7 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
State of Rajasthan & Anr.: SB Civil Writ Petition
No.12332/2016, Dr. Deshbandu Tyagi & Anr. Vs.State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: SB Civil Writ Petition No.2658/2005, DB
Special Appeal (Writ) No.1289/1997: State of Rajasthan &
Ors. Vs. Dr. Suresh Chandra.
8. Placing reliance upon the aforementioned decisions,
Government orders, and UGC Guidelines, it was emphatically
submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of CAS,
and denial thereof is contrary to the settled legal position.
9. Further, learned counsel Mr. Tarun Choudhary,
submitted that the present batch of cases may be broadly
classified into three distinct categories for the purpose of
adjudication:
Category I: pertains to those cases in which recovery orders are
issued against the petitioners, but where interim protection is
already granted by this Court. In these matters, learned counsel
had fairly conceded that the impugned recovery orders may be set
aside in view of the binding judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner
vs. Zabar Singh Solanki, Civil Appeal No. 8509 of 2024.
Category II encompasses those writ petitions wherein the benefit
under CAS is denied on the ground of break in service. In support
of the argument that such denial is unsustainable, reliance was
placed upon the Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan
vs. Smt. Anita Kothari, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
1333/2016.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (8 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]Category III includes cases where the petitioners’ claims for CAS
benefits are founded on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Milap Chand Jain & Anr. (supra) wherein it was
held that the entire length of service, including ad-hoc,
probationary, and even service rendered in private institutions is
ought to be counted for the purpose of CAS.
10. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ petitions falling
under each category be adjudicated in accordance with the legal
position settled in the respective precedents cited hereinabove.
11. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.
Vigyan Shah, appearing on behalf of the respondents, assisted by
learned Deputy Government Counsel, Mr. Aditya Singh, made the
following submissions whilst stoutly opposing the contentions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners:
12. It was contended that the legal issue involved in the
present writ petitions, particularly with regard to the grant of
benefit under the CAS, is no longer res integra, having been
conclusively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan
Agricultural University, Bikaner (supra). Learned counsel
further submitted that the said ratio is duly considered and
reaffirmed in earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
including Milap Chand Jain & Anr. (supra) and Dr. Suresh
Chand Agarwal (supra). These decisions collectively reinforce
the legal framework governing the grant of CAS benefits.
13. It was further submitted that the Government of
Rajasthan had issued various policy directives and circulars dated
01.05.1989, 18.01.1991, and 19.05.2001 respectively, which
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (9 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
unambiguously lay down the eligibility criteria for grant of CAS. As
per these circulars, the benefit of CAS can only be conferred upon
a candidate who has completed the requisite years of qualifying
service, post regular appointment. The said circulars make it
explicitly clear that the appointment must be made through the
duly prescribed selection procedure, and that appointments made
on an ad-hoc basis or for duration of less than one year shall not
be reckoned for the purposes of CAS entitlement. Emphasis was
laid upon the deliberate and categorical usage of the phrase “after
regular appointment”, as indicative of the legislative and policy
intent of the State Government in regulating the grant of CAS
benefits.
14. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned
counsel placed reliance upon Rule 2(i) and Parts-IV, V, VI, more
particularly Rules 22 to 27 of the Rajasthan Technical
Education Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Rules of 1973”), which are framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. It was submitted that these statutory
provisions clearly delineate the service conditions, eligibility
criteria, and avenues for advancement of technical education
service personnel, and must necessarily govern any consideration
for the award of CAS.
15. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel
for the respondents prayed that the writ petition(s) be dismissed
as being devoid of merit, and that the policy position of the State
Government, supported by statutory rules and authoritative
judicial pronouncements, be upheld.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (10 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
16. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for all the parties, undertaking a scrupulous
examination of the record pertaining to the case, scanning the
precedents cited at the Bar and juxtaposing the contentions noted
herein above, this Court is view that prior to a substantive
adjudication of the matter on its merits, it is appropriate to
delineate and formally note down the issues which are before this
Court for adjudication:
Issue 1: Whether service rendered by an employee in a
temporary or ad-hoc capacity prior to regular appointment can be
reckoned for the purpose of eligibility under the Career
Advancement Scheme (CAS), in accordance with the applicable
statutory regulations and judicial precedents?
Issue 2: Whether benefits granted under the Career
Advancement Scheme (CAS) in contravention of the governing
rules and regulations can be subject to recovery by the employer,
particularly in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud on the
part of the employee?
17. To tender an efficacious dealing to the issues framed
hereinabove, this Court deems it apposite to rely upon the
precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereby it had delineated
the boundaries of eligibility under the CAS, affirming that only
regular service counts towards the scheme’s benefits. While
safeguarding employees from retrospective financial recoveries,
the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to
established policy frameworks and the limited scope of judicial
intervention in administrative policy matters. These formulations
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (11 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
align with the legal principles established in Rajasthan
Agricultural University, Bikaner (supra) which held that ad-
hoc service cannot be counted for CAS benefits unless specific
conditions are met, and that recovery of benefits already granted
may not be permissible in the absence of misrepresentation or
fraud.
18. Qua the issue of eligibility of Ad-Hoc Service for CAS
Benefits (Issue no. 1), the Apex Court unequivocally held that
service rendered in an ad-hoc or temporary capacity prior to
regular appointment cannot be counted towards the eight-year
service requirement for eligibility under the CAS. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court emphasized that the CAS is a policy framework,
and its interpretation falls within the purview of the employer,
subject to state government directives. Judicial intervention is
warranted only if the policy’s application is patently perverse or
arbitrary. The High Court’s decision to include ad-hoc service in the
computation for CAS eligibility was thus deemed unjustified.
19. Qua the issue of recovery of CAS Benefits Granted
Contrary to policy, or the benefits already disbursed under the
CAS, the Apex Court held that such recoveries would be
inequitable, especially given the lapse of time and the absence of
any misrepresentation or fraud by the recipients. Consequently,
while the petitioners are not entitled to CAS benefits based on their
ad-hoc service, any payments already made shall not be
recovered.
20. The relevant extract from Rajasthan Agricultural
University, Bikaner (supra) is reproduced herein below:
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (12 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
“”20. We find that such a view is justified only to the
extent of granting the respondents pay-scales/revised
pay-scales as per the UGC recommendations. However,
the CAS was distinct to a general increase or revision in
pay-scales. The CAS was intended for a specific purpose
i.e., to encourage the teaching staff by offering a higher
pay-scale, subject to various conditions. This distinction
unfortunately has been lost sight of by the learned
Single Judge, which, in our considered opinion, was a
vital factor to be considered. Whenever a
Scheme/Policy is brought into force, ceteris paribus, the
Court could not and would not import something which
is not present therein and which may not be proper to
be interfered with, especially when it relates to financial
matters where primacy is required to be granted to the
pay-master as to what scale was to be granted to the
category of staff concerned. By its very nature, such
exercise would fall under the realm of policy-
formulation. In the present case, the CAS itself
envisaged that it was meant for persons who were
directly recruited as Assistant Professors. The CAS
specifically provided that every Lecturer was to be
placed in a senior scale of Rs.3000-5000 if he/she
had completed 8 years of service after regular
appointment.
27. We may however clarify that to direct for any
recovery of monies which may have already been
disbursed to the Respondents No.1 to 54 would
amount to inequity at this late stage. Hence, the
same shall not be recovered, but all the pay and
emoluments for the purposes of retiral/service
conditions and for post-retiral benefits shall be
reckoned notionally without granting any benefit
under the CAS. Assuming that the respondents are
otherwise entitled to any benefit under any other
Scheme/Policy, it is directed that the State Government
or the appellant will not deprive the respondents
thereof by virtue of the instant judgment alone.
29. Onto the Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C)
No.30963/2018, which traces its genesis to the order
dated 04.05.2018, passed by the Division Bench. This
was tagged with SLP (C) No.22813/2011 by order dated
30.11.2018 of this Court. In this case, respondents
No.1 to 9, before their regular appointment as Assistant
Professors in the University, served on an ad-hoc basis
in other educational institutions and also in the
University. These respondents preferred a writ petition
with a prayer to reckon their services rendered in such
ad-hoc capacity while determining their eligibility for
the grant of senior pay-scale under the CAS. The relief
claimed was granted by the learned Single Judge and
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (13 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
affirmed by the Division Bench relying on the judgment
in State of Rajasthan v Milap Chand Jain, (2013) 14
SCC 562. This Court, while disposing of Milap Chand
Jain (supra), relied on its earlier judgment dated
10.03.2011 in Civil Appeal No.469/2007 entitled State
of Rajasthan v Dr Suresh Chand Agrawal, which was
dismissed in limine, leaving the question of law open.
Review Petitions (Civil) No.2124-2125/2011 filed in Dr
Suresh Chand Agrawal (supra) were also dismissed by
this Court on 14.09.2011. In Milap Chand Jain (supra),
the State of Rajasthan had moved this Court in respect
of the same impugned order therein, against which
appeals stood previously dismissed by this Court.
30. Notably, the State Government vide its Letter
dated 20.09.1994, had specifically clarified that
the period of ad-hoc service rendered by the
respondents/Assistant Professors shall not be
counted for giving benefit of senior pay-scale
under the CAS. We have already elaborated
supra10 that the CAS is essentially a policy, and
as such, claiming that the clauses therein be
interpreted in a particular manner. Such an
interpretative exercise would have to be left, in the
domain of the appellant, subject to the State
Government’s directives unless patently perverse or
arbitrary. The High Court, hence, was not justified in
counting of the ad-hoc service rendered by the
respondents for reckoning the period of computation as
required for applying the CAS.
31. However, it is directed that there shall not be any
recoveries made from the respondents. The
respondents shall be entitled to the notional benefit of
the pay and emoluments for purposes of calculating
their retiral/service conditions and for post-retiral
benefits, but without grant of any benefit under the
CAS. It is clarified that if the respondents are entitled to
benefits under CAS after reckoning eight years of
service from the date(s) of their regular appointment or
to benefits under any other Scheme/Policy, the State
Government or the appellant shall not deny such an
advantage to them by virtue of this judgment alone.”
(Emphasis supplied)
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while distinguishing the
judgments rendered in Milap Chand Jain & Anr. (Supra) and
Dr. Suresh Chand Agrawal (supra), has unequivocally held that
the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) was instituted with the
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (14 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
specific objective of integrating the teaching faculty by providing
higher pay scales, contingent upon the fulfillment of certain
stipulated conditions. The CAS is distinct from general pay scale
revisions and was introduced as a policy measure with significant
financial implications. The policy explicitly employs the phrase
“after regular appointment,” thereby underscoring that only
service rendered subsequent to a regular appointment is to be
considered for CAS benefits. The relevant provision i.e. Rule 2 (i)
of the Rules of 1973 is reproduced herein below:
“(i) “Substantive Appointment” means an appointment
made under the provisions of these rules to a
substantive vacancy after due selection by any of the
method of recruitment prescribed tender these rules and
includes an appointment on probation or as a
probationer followed by confirmation on the completion
of the probationary period.
G.S.R. 67- AMENDMENT
For the existing clause to rule mentioned in column 3
against each of the service rules mentioned in column2,
the following shall be substituted, namely:- “service” of
“Experience” wherever prescribed in these rules as a
condition for promotion from one service to another or
within the service from category to another or to senior
posts ,in the case of a person holding a lower post
eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the
period for which the person has continuously worked on
such lower post after regular selection in accordance
with rules promulgated under proviso to article 309 of
the constitution of India.”
22. This Court observes that, in the case of Rajasthan
Agricultural University, Bikaner (supra), the Apex Court has
categorically held that the CAS does not confer a vested right upon
employees but operates as a policy framework. Eligibility under the
CAS is governed by specific terms and conditions, including the
duration of service post-regular appointment. The interpretation
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (15 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
and implementation of the CAS fall within the domain of the State
Government, and any deviation from the prescribed norms cannot
be justified unless it is shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
23. This Court further notes that counting ad-hoc or
temporary service rendered by the petitioners towards eligibility
for CAS benefits is unjustified unless such consideration aligns with
specific orders issued by the State Government from time to time,
such as those dated 01.05.1989, 18.01.1991, and 19.05.2001. In
the absence of such directives, inclusion of ad-hoc service for CAS
eligibility contravenes the established policy framework.
CONCLUSION:
24. Having the aforementioned observations being made
this Court is of the view that service rendered in an ad-hoc or
temporary capacity, prior to regular appointment cannot be
counted towards the eight-year service requirement for eligibility
under the CAS, as the CAS policy explicitly stipulates that only
service after regular appointment is to be considered; that the
interpretation of policy frameworks like the CAS falls within the
purview of the employer, subject to state government directives
and judicial intervention is warranted only if the policy’s application
is patently perverse or arbitrary; and that the Apex Court’s
decision in Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner
(supra), underscores the importance of adhering to established
policy frameworks and the limited scope of judicial intervention in
administrative policy matters.
25. In light of the foregoing observations and discussions,
the present writ petitions are hereby disposed of. However, the
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20884] (16 of 16) [CW-14181/2023]
Court clarified that if the petitioners become eligible for CAS
benefits after completing eight years of regular service, or qualify
under any other scheme or policy, such benefits should not be
denied solely based on this judgment.
26. Nonetheless, the petitioners are at liberty to submit
individual representations to the Principal Secretary, Higher
Education, the Commissioner, College Education, or any other
competent authority within a period of thirty days from the date of
passing of this judgment. Such representations should elucidate
their cases within the ambit of various State Government orders
and in consonance with the judgment rendered in Rajasthan
Agricultural University, Bikaner (Supra).
27. Should the petitioners submit representations within the
stipulated timeframe, the competent authority is directed to
adjudicate upon each representation on its own merits, considering
all relevant aspects, including the State Government’s orders and
the judgments in Milap Chand Jain & Anr. (Supra) and Dr.
Suresh Chand Agrawal, within a period of sixty days from the
date of receipt of such representations.
28. Consequently, the present batch of petitions is disposed
of. Stay application and/or pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
29. A copy of this order be separately placed in each connected
file.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:55:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)