Allowed

Bhanwar Lal Mali v. Maharana Pratap Univer. a and T., and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2022CW/1870/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that granting the same pay scale for selection grades after 9 and 18 years of service was an illusory benefit. It allowed the petitions and directed the University to grant higher pay scales corresponding to the next promotion post.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 after 18 years and Rs.6500-10500 after 27 years of service.

Bhanwar Lal Mali Vs Maharana Pratap Univer. a and… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4173/2009

¶3

Narbada Shanker Ameta S/o Sh. G.L. Ameta aged 66 years, R/o Village Titardi, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur through its Registrar.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1870/2009

¶9

Bhanwar Lal Mali, S/o Sh. Devi Lal Mali aged 60 years, R/o 8 – Maliwada, Behind Ashwani Bazar, District Udaipur.

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

1.Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur through its Registrar, Udaipur. 2.The Comptroller, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur, District Udaipur.

¶13

3.The Dean, College of Technology and Agricultural Engineering, Udaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7462/2009

¶16

Udai Lal Lohar S/o Sh. Vala Ji aged about 64 years, R/o Kalka Mata Road, Plot No.11, Payada Ganesh Nagar, Udaipur.

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

1.Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur through its Registrar, Udaipur. 2.The Comptroller, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur, District Udaipur. 3.The Dean, College of Technology and Agricultural Engineering, Udaipur.

----Respondents

(2 of 13)

[CW-4173/2009]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1403/2014

¶24

Khemraj Dangi S/o Sh. Dalu Ji Dangi, aged 52 yrs., Resident of bada Nokha, Hiran Magri, Kumbha Nagar, Udaipur

¶25

Sammad Khan, S/o Late Sh. Noor Mohd., aged 58 yrs., R/o Utari Sundarwas, Makan No. 261, Udaipur

¶26

Yar Mohd. Khan, S/o Sh. Faiz Mohd., aged 68 yrs., R/o Vada Purohitji ka Khura, Makan No. 50, Mahavat Vadi, Udaipur

¶27

Omkar Lal Menariya, S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Ji Menariya, aged 52 yrs., R/o Mukan Post Rundeda, Tehsil Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur

¶28

Mangi Lal Jalora, S/o Sh. Udai Lal, aged 56 yrs., R/o Mukam Chikalwas, Post Loyara, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur

¶29

Narendra Kumar Bhatt, S/o Late Sh. Rama Kant Bhatt, aged 55 yrs., R/o 15, Ashirwad, Behind Sajan Sajani Vatika, Rani Talai, Banswara

¶30

Vithala, S/o Sh. Kevji Ninama, aged 57 yrs., R/o KVK, Banswara

¶31

Vithala S/o Sh. Kuriya, Aged 59 yrs., R/o Vorvat Farm, Banswara

¶32

Rambhakat Sisodiya, S/o Sh. Ekling Ji Sisodiya, aged 66 yrs., R/o Vishvidhiyala Colony, G 15, Utari Sunderwas, Udaipur

¶33

Shyam Lal Jhalora, S/o Sh.Ramaji, aged 63 yrs., R/o Mukam Chikalwas, Post Loyara, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur

¶34

Moti Lal Menariya, S/o Late Sh. Ghasi Ram Ji, aged 59 yrs., R/o Mukam Kharsan, Tehsil Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur

¶35

Mahendra Singh Rathore, S/o Late Sh. Mangal Singh Rathore, aged 49 yrs., R/o Shrinath Marg, Idar House, Makan No. 28, Udaipur

¶36

Chittar Singh, S/o Sh. Amba Dan, aged 52 yrs., R/o Gram Churli, Post Patan, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer

¶37

Laxmi Lal Nagrechi, S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Nagrechi, aged 49 yrs., R/o IGMRI Colony, 3/6, CTAE Campus, Udaipur

¶38

Devi Lal Bhoi, S/o Sh. Kalu Lal, aged 53 yrs., R/o Raj Bhoi Vada, Chota Udaipur

¶39

Meghraj Dangi, S/o Sh. Parna Ji Dangi, aged 55 yrs., R/o Daniyo Pacholi, Makan No. 99, Post Bhoiyo Ki Pacholi, Girwa, Udaipur

¶40

Laxmi Lal Bhardwaj, S/o Late Sh. Bhanwar Lal Ji, aged 56 yrs., R/o Bhatiyani Chohta, Suthar Vada 48, Udaipur

¶41

Velnath Gehlot, S/o Late Sh. Padamnath Ji, aged 54 yrs., R/o Mukam Post Jhallara, Tehsil Salumbar, District Udaipur

¶42

Gangaram Dangi, S/o Sh. Kana Ji Dangi, aged 55 yrs., R/o Savina, Tehsil Girwa, Udaipur

¶43

Bheru Lal Joshi, S/o Sh. Jeetmal Ji Joshi, aged 63 yrs., R/o Mukam Kalval, Post Sakeda via Bhidar, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, Udaipur

¶44

Tulsi Ram Dave, S/o Sh. Udai Ram Ji Dave, aged 54 yrs., R/o 2/16, Shivaji Nagar, Housing Board, Dungarpur

¶45

(3 of 13)

¶46

[CW-4173/2009]

¶47

Shivshanker Paliwal, S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Ji Paliwal, aged 54 yrs., R/o Mukam Gudali, Tehsil Bhawli, Udaipur

¶48

Ram Lal (Rathore) Bhoi, S/o Late Sh. Kodar Ji, aged 50 yrs., R/o University Colony, Utari Sundarwas, F16, Udaipur

¶49

Shanker Singh Gehlot, S/o Late Sh. Lal Singh Gehlot, aged 58 yrs., R/o 15, Tulsi Vila, Ramgir, Badganv, Udaipur

¶50

Shaitan Singh, S/o Late Sh. Baldev Singh, aged 58 yrs., R/o Village Chandrani, Post Chandrani, taluka Himatnagar, (Zila) Sanwarfata, Udaipur

¶51

Nand Lal, S/o Late Bhanwar Lal Ji Vairagi, aged 68 yrs., R/o Pahada, Hanumanchow, Ganesh Nagar, Makan No. 252, Udaipur

¶52

Murad Khan S/o Vazir Khan, age 61 years, R/o Makan Khoji Peer, Kadak Ji Ka Chowk, 121, Udaipur.

¶53

Kesar Singh S/o Anop Singh, age 50 years, R/o University Campus, CTAR, Uatri Sundarwas, Udaipur.

¶54

Laxman Singh Chundawat S/o Anop Singh, age 59 years, R/o Khandu Colony, Sector No. 8 Behind Girls School, Banswara.

¶55

Shakeel Ahmed S/o Sh. Raja Mohammad, Age 45 years, R/o Near Kakod Gate School Uniyara, District Tonk.

¶56

Jagannath Kushwaha S/o Sh. Kanhaiyalal, age 57 years, R/o Borkheda Mandi Pada, District Kota.

¶57

Hemraj Kushwah S/o Sh. Chotulal, Age 43 years, R/o Village Jalkheda, Post Kheda Rasul Pur, Via Kethun Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota.

¶58

Tarachand Kushwah S/o Sh. Gajananand Kushwaha, Age 50 year, R/o Adarsh Colony, Malarod In Front of 271 Ke Samne, District Kota.

¶59

Nand Singh Rajawat S/o Shiv Brahm Singh, R/o Yatrik Krishi Farm, Umaid Ganj, Kota.

¶60

Ghanshyam Prasad S/o Madan Lal R/o Yatrik Krishi Farm, Umaid Ganj, Kota.

¶61

Babu Lal Kushwaha S/o Sh. Kanharam Ji, R/o Bor Kheda Mandi, Pada, Kota.

¶62

Ram Kumar Joshi S/o Ghansi Lal Sharma, R/o ARS Umaid Ganj Kota.

¶63

Jagdish Prasad Kushwaha S/o Kanha Ram Ji, R/o Bor Kheda Mandi Pada Kota.

¶64

----Petitioners

¶65

Versus

¶66

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur through its Registrar.

¶67

Agriculture University Kota through its Registrar.

----Respondents

(4 of 13)

[CW-4173/2009]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1931/2014

¶72

1.Tejmal Kushwah S/o Sh. Hariballabh, aged 58 years, Resident of Jalkhera, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota. (Presently working as Driver at ARS Kota)

¶73

2.Kamal Prasad S/o Sh. Prahalad, aged 56 years, R/o Indira Gandhi Nagar Power House, Hanuman Mandir, P.O. Shri Ram Nagar, Kota. (Presently working as Driver at MAF Kota)

¶74

----Petitioners

¶75

Versus

¶76

1.Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur through its Registrar, Udaipur.

¶77

2.Agriculture University Kota through its Registrar.

¶78

----Respondents

¶79

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶80

: Mr. Mukesh Vyas : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Punia

¶81

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶82

Order

¶83

01/09/2022

¶84

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶85

The petitioners and the other similarly situated persons filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2161/2005; Bhanwar Lal Mali & Ors. vs. Maharana Pratap Agriculture University & Ors. The said writ petition was filed against the non grant of proper selection grade on completion of 9 years of service and same way benefit of second selection grade after completion of 18 years of service. In the said writ petition, it was assured by the respondents-authorities, present before the Court, that the matter of the petitioners would be re-examined in light of the rules and therefore, on the said assurance, the said writ petition was disposed of on 27.02.2008 with the following observations.

¶86

(5 of 13)

¶87

[CW-4173/2009]

¶88

“Since the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that matter of the petitioner would be considered in the light of the Rules without being guided by the order passed by the Committee, it would be proper to direct the respondent to not only consider the case of the petitioners as per the Rules but if he is entitled for the benefit as prayed by them in the present writ petition necessary order in that regard be passed within two months from today so that controversy may come to an end.”

¶89

In pursuance to the order dated 27.02.2008, the respondent-University proceeded on to decide the case of the petitioners vide order dated 22.04.2008. Vide the said order, it was decided that the drivers would be granted promotion as also the selection pay scales in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the University. In terms of the said order, the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 has been granted to the petitioners on completion of 9 years of service and a selection grade is given in the same pay scale after completion of 18 years of service by awarding two additional increments as per the provisions of Rule 26-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The said order dated 22.04.2008 is under challenge in the present petitions on the ground that the selection grade with a similar pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 has been ordered to be granted on completion of 9 years as well as 18 years of service.

¶90

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 22.04.2008 is in total contravention to the notification dated 25.01.1992 of the State Government whereby it has specifically been provided that the first selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of 9 years and further that the second selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes service of 18 years. Learned counsel further submitted that

¶91

(6 of 13)

¶92

[CW-4173/2009]

¶93

Clause 4 of the circular dated 25.01.1992 specifically provides that the first and the second selection grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to the employee’s existing pay scale as specified in para 5. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of para 5 of the said circular, as he was granted the 1^st selection grade with pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 (being payable to the promotional post of Junior Mechanic), he would now be entitled to the next pay scale that is Rs.5500-9000/6500-10500 whichever is applicable. Learned counsel further submitted that in a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8301/2008 ; Shiv Lal Panchariya & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner filed by the similarly situated employees (drivers of Rajasthan Agriculture University) with the same prayer, the writ petition of the petitioners therein was allowed vide order dated 14.05.2009. The said order dated 14.05.2019 was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and further by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In pursuance to the order dated 14.05.2009, the University therein allowed and granted the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 respectively to the petitioners therein on completion of 9 years and 18 years of service. The relevant orders have also been placed on record. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the case of the petitioners being on a totally similar footing also deserves to be allowed on the same terms.

¶94

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan ; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2008 decided on 17.11.2008.

¶95

(7 of 13)

¶96

[CW-4173/2009]

¶97

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 22.04.2008 passed by the respondents is totally in consonance with the rules and the pay scales as prescribed by the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that the first promotional post from the post of Driver/Carpenter is the Junior Mechanic and the second promotional post is the Senior Mechanic. The pay scale for both the posts is Rs.5000-8000 and the same being determined by the State Government, the University is bound to follow the same. Learned counsel further submitted that the direction in the earlier writ petition of this Court was to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the rules governing the services of the petitioners and in terms of the Rules, the pay scale payable to them would be the one as prescribed by the State Government which is Rs.5000-8000 for both the posts of Junior Mechanic as well as Senior Mechanic. Learned counsel also submitted that the ratio as laid down in the case of Shiv Lal Panchariya (supra) would not be applicable to the present petitioners as in the said matter it was the case of the respondents that the post of Driver is an isolated post whereas in the present case it is the specific case of the University that the post of the Driver/Carpenter is a promotional post and therefore, Clause 5 of the notification dated 21.01.1992 would not be applicable on the present petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that Clause 5 of the notification dated 25.01.1992 applies to only those employees where no promotional post is available for them, that is, the post is an isolated post. Learned counsel also submitted that the present petitioners have been granted the benefit of promotion as and when they were entitled for the same and even the increments as payable to them have also been

¶98

(8 of 13)

¶99

[CW-4173/2009]

¶100

granted. Therefore, the present are not the cases of financial stagnation and the petitioners would be entitled to pay scale payable to the corresponding post as prescribed by the State Government. Learned counsel further submitted that Clause 4 of the notification dated 25.01.1992 would only be applicable to the petitioners and the benefits in terms of the said clause have already been granted to them. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that even if Clause 5 is assumed to be held applicable to the present petitioners, the petitioners would not be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/6500-10500. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of Clause 5, the petitioners were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1200-2500 (revised to Rs.4000-6000) equivalent to the promotional post of Junior Mechanic but in terms of recommendation of SAMTA Committee, the said pay scale was revised and enhanced to Rs.5000-8000 and the same was even granted to the petitioners. Therefore, the additional benefit having already been granted to the petitioners in view of the recommendations of the SAMTA Committee, they cannot now claim the second additional benefit.

¶101

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10493/2011.

¶102

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶103

A perusal of the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed in the case of Shiv Lal Panchariya (supra) makes it clear that the argument of learned counsel for the respondents therein that the post of the Driver is an isolated post was not accepted by the

¶104

(9 of 13)

¶105

[CW-4173/2009]

¶106

Court and it was held that the post of the Driver is a promotional post. After holding that the post of Driver is a promotional post, the Court proceeded on to observe as under:

¶107

“It is also not in dispute that the respondent University adopted Government of Rajasthan circular dated 25.1.1992 and all its subsequent circulars in continuation including the circular dated 17.2.1998. As per the circulars referred above, the employees concerned are entitled for getting selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service and such selection grades shall be equivalent to the pay scale applicable for respective promotional post. The post of Driver with the respondent University is not an isolated post and, therefore, the petitioners are certainly entitled for getting pay scale relating to the next promotional post on completion of specific term of service i.e. of 9 years for first selection grade, 18 years for second selection grade and 27 years of service for receiving third selection grade. The respondent University wrongly denied such pay scales to the petitioners by treating the post of drivers as isolated one. The memorandum of understanding arrived between the respondent University and the State Government is also of no consequence as the petitioners are claiming their right as per rules framed by the Board of Management of the University.

¶108

In view of whatever said above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The petitioners are declared entitled for receiving the pay scale applicable for the post of Junior Mechanic as first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service, the pay scale of Senior Mechanic on completion of 18 years of service and the pay scale applicable for the post of Foreman on completion of 27 years of service. The respondent University is accordingly directed to allow selection grades to the petitioners are per declaration of their entitlement.”

¶109

It is clear that vide the abovementioned judgment the petitioners were declared entitled for receiving the pay scale applicable for the post of Junior Mechanic as first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service and pay scale of Senior Mechanic on completion of 18 years of service.

¶110

(10 of 13)

¶111

[CW-4173/2009]

¶112

Here are the cases where the pay scale as prescribed for the post of Junior Mechanic and the post of Senior Mechanic is the same i.e. Rs.5000-8000. Therefore, the issue for consideration is whether the entitlement of an employee would be in terms of the said pay scales only even if both are same. In the case of Sohan Lal Mathur (supra) while relying upon the earlier judgment of this

¶113

Court in case of Shravan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2156/2007 decided on 05.09.2008 the Court considered the issue which was relating to grant of selection grade of a person holding the post of Electrician Gr.I having an avenue for promotion to the post of Foreman Gr.II in the same pay scale. While considering the said issue, the Court held as under:

¶114

“The selection grade satisfies higher emoluments only. If the government do not grant even the higher emoluments then the prescription of selection grade shall be of no consequence. The prescription of same pay scale on competition of 18 years of service as a matter of fact is an illusory benefit and that is not at all grant of selection grade with the spirit of the notification dated 25.1.1992.”

¶115

Therefore, in view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Sohan Lal Mathur (supra) it can safely be concluded that the grant of the same pay scale on completion of 9 years as well as 18 years of service is an illusory benefit and cannot be termed to be grant of selection grade within the spirit of the notification dated 25.01.1992.

¶116

Before traversing into the notification dated 25.01.1992, it would be appros to reproduce Clause 4 and 5 of the notification for ready reference. Clause 4 & 5 of the notification dated 25.01.1992 read as under:

¶117

“4. (i) The first Selection Grade, wher-ever admissible in terms of this order shall be the pay scale of the

¶118

(11 of 13)

¶119

[CW-4173/2009]

¶120

next promotion post in the same service / cadre i.e. Class – IV/ Ministerial / Subordinate Service; provided that in case there is no next promotion post in the same service/ cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the first Selection Grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale as specified in paragraph 5.

¶121

(ii) The second Selection Grade, wherever admissible, in terms of this order, shall be the pay scale of the second promotion post available to that employee in the same service / cadre; provided that in case there is no second promotion post in the same service/ cadre of the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the second Selection Grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale of the post held or the selection grade), as specified in paragraph 5.

¶122

(iii) The third Selection Grade, wherever admissible in terms of this order, shall be the pay scale of the third promotion post available to that employee in the same service / cadre; provided that in case there is not third promotion post in the same service/ cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale of the post held or the selection grade) as specified in paragraph 5.

¶123

5. In case there is no post for first, second or third promotion, as the case may be, in the same service/ cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the Selection Grades shall be as specified below: -

¶124

*S.No.*	*Existing Pay* *Scale*	*Selection Grade*
1.	750-950(1)	775-1025(2)
2.	775-1025(2)	800-1250(3)
3.	800-1250(3)	825-1350(4)
4.	825-1350(4)	950-1680(6)
5.	910-1520(5)	975-1720(7)
6.	950-1680(6)	1200-2050(9)
7.	975-1720(7)	1200-2050(9)
8.	1025-1800(8)	1400-2300(10)
9.	1200-2050(9)	1400-2600(12)
10.	1400-2300(10)	(i) in those cases
11.	1400-2360(11)	where next promotion post is
12.	1400-2600 (12)	in a State Service – 2000-3200(14)

¶125

(12 of 13)

¶126

[CW-4173/2009]

¶127

		(ii) in other cases
13.	1640-2900(13)	2000-3200(14)
14.	2000-3200(14)	2000-3500(15)
15.	2000-3500(15)	2200-4000(16)

¶128

Note - if an incumbent of the isolated post or a person not possessing academic qualifications prescribed for promotion has been granted selection grade before issue of this order and such selection grade is higher than that indicated in this paragraph, he will continue to draw pay in such selection grade as personal to him but the second or third selection grades shall be determined with reference to the first or second Selection Grade which would have been admissible in terms of this paragraph.”

¶129

So far as the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that Clause 4 of the notification dated 25.01.1992 would be applicable to the present petitioners and not Clause 5, it is relevant to note that Clause 4 itself provides that when there is no promotional post available, the first selection grade or the second selection grade would be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale of the post held on the selection) as specified in para 5. Meaning thereby, even in cases where no promotional post is available, the selection grade payable would be in terms of para 5. The intention of said clause is clear that an employee should be granted the financial upgradation either by way of promotion or by way of grant of the next selection grade. If the promotional post itself provides for the same selection grade as already being paid to the employee, the same cannot be termed to be a financial upgradation or benefit by any means. The same would be an illusory benefit as held in the case of Shravan Kumar (supra).

¶130

Admittedly, in view of the recommendations of the SAMTA Committee, the pay scale of the petitioners was revised from Rs.4000-6000 to Rs.5000-8000. Having once revised the pay

¶131

(13 of 13)

¶132

[CW-4173/2009]

¶133

scale, it cannot be open for the respondent-University to say that the same was an additional benefit granted to the petitioners and therefore, now they would not be entitled to the second selection grade payable in terms of para 5 of the notification dated 25.01.1992. The grant of the second selection grade means a financial upgradation by all means and therefore, the petitioners would definitely be entitled to the selection grade of Rs.5500-9000 in terms of the circular dated 25.01.1992. It is also relevant to observe that the case of the present petitioners is not at all different from that of the petitioners in the case of Shiv Lal Panchariya (supra).

¶134

Therefore, in view of the above observations, the present writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 after completion of 18 years of service qua second selection grade and further Rs.6500-10500 on completion of 27 years of service qua third selection grade. The appropriate orders be passed by the respondent-University within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the present order.

¶135

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶136

T.Singh, Abhishek/-

Bhanwar Lal Mali v. Maharana Pratap Univer. a and T., and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal Mali v. Maharana Pratap Univer. a and T., and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Das Joshi Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

Ram Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalmani Tripathi Vs State and Anr.

Deepak Kumar Khatri Vs State and Ors.

Pushpa Solanki Vs State of Rajasthan