CW/2220/2024 of KAMLA DEVI W/O SHRI TEEKAM Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 10 July 2026

Order

10/07/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners agitated in the present bunch of writ petition that petitioners are being denied the minimum pay-scale of Class-IV employee for want of the requisite qualifications, though the petitioners have experience of working of Class-IV employee with the respondents for last more than 20 years.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue agitated in the present writ petition has already been put to rest by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Pryagwati and Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 97/2025) decided on 22.01.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that the issue raised in the present bunch of writ petitions has been

(4 of 5) [CW-10793/2023] put to rest by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Pryagwati (Supra).

4. In case of Pryagwati (Supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench observations are as under :- "4. We notice that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directs the appellants to grant relief to the respondents-writ petitioners as the same terms as directed in an earlier judgment passed in the case of Anokh Bai Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013 which is reproduced as under:-“In the light of the discussion made above, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of wages at the rate of minimum of the pay scale for the post of Cook and Watchman while denying the benefit of regularisation sought by them, as otherwise not pressed by the petitioners. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay wages to the petitioners at the rate of minimum of the pay scale. The benefit aforesaid would be given to the petitioners from the date of pronouncement of the judgment. The compliance of this judgment would be made by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

5. Thus, we find that only minimum pay scale of the post has been directed to be paid from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.

6. In our considered opinion, for the purpose of grant of minimum of the pay scale, the requirement of educational qualification would not come in way, as the person is not being directed to be regularized. Even for the purpose of regularization, we notice that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (supra) clearly holds that denial on the ground of lack of qualification would be an illegality.

7. We, therefore, are unable to accept the contention made by the learned counsel that the

(5 of 5) [CW-10793/2023] respondent’s case should be treated differently from the other writ petitioners. She would therefore, be entitled to the same benefits as granted to the others from the same date as directed by learned Single Judge."

5. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and the admission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that these cases are squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench passed in case of Pryagwati (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the present writ petitions and the same has been disposed of in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Pryagwati (supra).

6. Accordingly, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Pryagwati (Supra) shall apprise to the present case also.

7. Stay application/s as well as pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 89 to 93 /SHRUTI SHARMA