Harish Chandra Gera Son of Shri Khem Chand Gera v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Apr 2026CW/5167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deputation vs transfer/absorption; ex-Rajasthan Electricity Board employees serving Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB); pension on BBMB pay-scale; covered-by-precedent disposal following State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Darbari Lal & Anr., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 119/2009; Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 — Rule 7 and Rule 45 invoked in argument; writ petitions disposed in terms of precedent. Bench: Munnuri Laxman, J. Decision dated 06/04/2026. Counsel: Ajay Gupta for petitioners; Rahul Lodha for respondents.

What did the court decide?

The entire batch of writ petitions is disposed of in the same terms as the Division Bench judgment in The State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Darbari Lal & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 119/2009). ¶¶77

Harish Chandra Gera Son of Shri Khem Chand Gera Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether employees originally working with the Rajasthan Electricity Board who gave their services to respondent No.3, Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), are to be treated as employees of respondent No.3 — and consequently which pay-scale (BBMB's or the Rajasthan Electricity Board's, treating them as on deputation) applies for pensionary benefits. +1 more

¶¶66

Court's answer

The issue raised in the present batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in The State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Darbari Lal & Anr.; accordingly, the batch of writ petitions is disposed of in terms of that judgment.

¶¶77

Ratio / Principle

The respondents' argument that the benefits extended under the Darbari Lal judgment cannot be extended in the present matters because BBMB was not a party before the Division Bench is devoid of merits: the Electricity Board is the proper party to speak to whether the employees worked on deputation or on transfer, and for those findings BBMB is a formal party, not a necessary party.

¶¶74

Key takeaways

Adopting the position recorded from the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the employees are treated as transferred employees and not employees working on deputation, and the pay-scale applicable in respondent No.3 (BBMB) is taken into consideration for grant of pension.ratio¶¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch of five connected S.B. civil writ petitions (lead matter: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16977/2022; connected: Nos. 6986/2022, 6977/2023, 5167/2024 and 17222/2022) filed by retired employees originally of the Rajasthan Electricity Board who rendered service with respondent No.3, Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), claiming pensionary benefits. Munnuri Laxman, J. held (06/04/2026) that the issue — whether such employees are BBMB employees, with pension on the BBMB pay-scale rather than on the Rajasthan Electricity Board scale treating them as on deputation under Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 — is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in The State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Darbari Lal & Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 119/2009). The respondents' objections — that legal positions under Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules were not canvassed before the Division Bench, and that BBMB (now a party supporting the Board) was absent in that decision so the true facts were not placed — were rejected: the Electricity Board is the proper party on deputation-versus-transfer, BBMB being a formal party only; and per the Division Bench and Supreme Court view recorded by this Court, the employees were transferred, not on deputation, with the BBMB pay-scale governing pension. All writ petitions were disposed of in the terms of Darbari Lal.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:14218]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16977/2022

¶4

Arun Kumar Anand Son Of Shri H.l. Anand, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of 1440, Sector-8, Housing Board Colony, Kurushetra, Haryana- 136118.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pr. Secretary To Government, Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

¶9

Bhakra Beas Management Board, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019 Through Its Chairman.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6986/2022

¶13

Laxmi Narain Yadav Son Of Shri Raghunath Yadav, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Vpo Malikpur, Tehsil Bhawani Khera, District Bhiwani, Haryana -127021

¶14

Raj Kumar Singh Son Of Late Shri Netrapal Singh, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of House No. 593, Sector 15-A, Faridabad, Haryana-121007

¶15

Bajrang Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Sampat Ram Sharma, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of House No. 32, Gali No.1, Opp. Choudhary Hospital, Krishna Nagar, Panipat, Haryana-132103

¶16

Yogendra Kumar Rathi Son Of Late Shri Mishri Lal Rathi, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of House No. 562, Gaur Cascades, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad (U.p.)

¶17

Khem Chand Kaushik Son Of Shri Heera Lal Kaushik, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of House No. 92, Sector4A, Dharuheda, District Rewari, Haryana-123106

¶18

Surendra Lal Nepalia Son Of Late Shri Ghanshyam Lal, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of 176, Ashapurna Enclave, Pal Byepass Road, Near Dps School, Jodhpur (Raj.) 342014

¶19

Lal Chand Sharma Son Of Shri Rawat Ram Sharma, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Vpo Bhaleri, Tehsil Tara Nagar, District Churu (Raj.) - 331304

¶20

----Petitioners

¶21

(2 of 6) [CW-16977/2022]

¶22

[2026:RJ-JP:14218]

¶23

Versus

¶24

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pr. Secretary To Government, Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶25

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Chairman And Managing Director

¶26

Bhakra Beas Management Board, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019 Through Its Chairman

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6977/2023

¶29

Mahendra Kumar Son Of Shri Jagddish Prasad, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of House No. 3075, Sector-20D, Chandigarh160020 Pension Payment Order (Ppo)-13503 Dated 31.10.2002.

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pr. Secretary To Government, Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶33

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

¶34

Bhakra Beas Management Board, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019 Through Its Chairman

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5167/2024

¶37

Harish Chandra Gera Son Of Shri Khem Chand Gera, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of 71/296-A, Opposite K.v.-5, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶38

Ravindra Pal Singh Son Of Shri Vasu Dev Singh, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of 374, Shanti Kunj, Alwar (Raj.)

¶39

Sayeed Akhtar Son Of Shri Mehmood Ali Khan, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of House No. 34-A, Block No. A, 2Nd Floor, New Brijpuri, Thana Jagatpuri, Khureji Khas, Krishna Nagar-East, Delhi .

¶40

----Petitioners

¶41

Versus

¶42

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶43

(3 of 6) [CW-16977/2022]

¶44

[2026:RJ-JP:14218]

¶45

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Managing Director.

¶46

Bhakra Beas Management Board, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019 Through Its Chairman.

¶47

----Respondents

¶48

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17222/2022

¶49

Shailesh Purohit S/o Dr. S.d. Purohit, Aged About 55 Years, R/o C-502, Techno Park-Ii, Near Thakur Public School, Thakur Village, Kandhiwali - East, Mumbai - 400101.

¶50

Prem Kumar Shah S/o Shri Hari Narayan Shah, Aged About 51 Years, R/o House No. 8, Lane No. 14, Mohit Nagar, Vasant Vihar, Dehradun (Uttarakhand) -248006.

¶51

----Petitioners

¶52

Versus

¶53

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pr. Secretary To Government, Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶54

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

¶55

Bhakra Beas Management Board, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019 Through Its Chairman

¶56

----Respondents

¶57

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha.

¶58

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order

¶59

06/04/2026

¶60

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as respondents.

¶61

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the facts in the present batch of the writ petitions are similar to the facts involved in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the batch of appeals led by D.B. Civil

¶62

(4 of 6) [CW-16977/2022]

¶63

[2026:RJ-JP:14218]

¶64

Special Appeal (Writ) No. 119/2009 titled as “The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Darbari Lal & Anr.” and, therefore, seeks disposal of the present writ petitions in the same terms.

¶65

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that certain legal positions were not canvassed while rendering the judgment by this Court, particularly, Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and the applicable rules were not adverted to, which defines the pay.

¶66

The issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions is whether the employees, who were originally working with the Rajasthan Electricity Board but were giving their services to work with the respondent No. 3 – Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), are to be treated as the employees of the respondent No. 3 or not.

¶67

The argument advanced before the Division Bench was that the pay-scale of the deputation department is not applicable for grant of any pensionary benefit. The pay-scale which the petitioners were getting under the Rajasthan Electricity Board are applicable in terms of Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 treating them as on deputation and not the employees on transfer or absorption.

¶68

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the matter is squarely covered by the said judgment on the ground that the petitioners were working similar to the employees covered under Division Bench order and the they are only entitled for pension as per the pay which they are entitled to draw under the regulations of the Rajasthan Electricity Board

[2026:RJ-JP:14218]

[CW-16977/2022]

(5 of 6)

and not the pay-scale of the deputation department, i.e. the respondent No. 3 (BBMB).

¶73

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the BBMB under whom the petitioners have worked prior to their retirement was not a party in the decision of the Division Bench, as such, the true facts could not be placed before the Division Bench while rendering the judgment. As a consequence, the Division Bench passed the order.

¶74

In the present case, the BBMB is a party and supporting the Rajasthan Electricity Board and, therefore, the benefits which were extended under the said judgment cannot be extended in the present matters. 9. This argument is devoid of merits. The reason is that the Electricity Board is the proper party to say whether the employees were allowed to work on deputation or on the basis of transfer. The long period of their tenure in BBMB beyond the outer limit of deputation was one of the circumstance taken note by the Division Bench to come to the conclusion that the services of the employees were not on deputation but on transfer. For these findings, the BBMB may be a formal party, not a necessary party. 10. The issue raised in the present batch of writ petitions was considered by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein, it was held that the employees were treated as the transferred employees and not the employees working on deputation. As such, the pay-scale as applicable in the respondent No.3 (BBMB) was taken into consideration for grant of pension by the competent authorities.

¶75

[2026:RJ-JP:14218]

¶76

[CW-16977/2022]

¶77

Having gone through the material available on record, this Court is satisfied that the issue raised in the present batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by the said judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Darbari Lal & Anr. 12. As a result of the discussion made hereinabove, the present batch of writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the batch of appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 119/2009 titled as “The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Darbari Lal & Anr.”

¶78

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶79

109-113-Mohan

Harish Chandra Gera Son of Shri Khem Chand Gera v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra Gera Son of Shri Khem Chand Gera v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nisha Bhatnagar W/O Late Shri Rajendera Bhatnagar Vs Smt. Seema Meena W/O Shri Lalit Meena

Smt. Bhagwati Devi Wife of Late Gopal Biyani Vs Sanatan Kumar Son of Late Phool Chand Biyani

Akshat Singh @ Jhamman Singh S/O Deewan Singh Vs Ravindra Kumar Sharma S/O Ramkhiladi Sharma

Kaneej Fatma D/O Bali Mohammad W/O Shafikuddin Vs Shafi Mohammad S/O Bali Mohammad

Murarilal Son of Shiv Charan Lal Vs Kailash Chand Goyal Son of Late Moolchand Goyal

Feliram Son of Arjunlal Meena Vs Kailash Son of Ramsahay