Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandratan Bhati And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:48911]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2267/2017
1. Chandratan Bhati S/o Sh. Devi Lal Ji, By Caste Bhati,
Resident Of Plot No. 139, Sector B, Sukhram Nagar,
Soorsagar, Jodhur
2. Manaram S/o Shri Panna Lal Ji Choudhary, Resident Of
Village Modi Sotadan, District Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary To
The Government, Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur Through Its
Commissioner At Jodhpur
3. Secretary, Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
Mr. Gaurav Choudhary
Mr. L.D. Lakhara
Mr. Ghanshyam Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Rajvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 12/11/2025
1. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to appoint them on the post of Jr. Engineer (Electrical) from 05.09.2008 with all consequential benefits.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially engaged in the Electricity Department on 05.09.2008. Pursuant to directions issued by the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), they were assigned duties on the post of Electrical (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:33:44 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 09:38:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48911] (2 of 7) [CW-2267/2017] Inspector/Road Light Inspector, and they joined the said assignment on the same date. Although they continuously discharged the functions of Road Light Inspectors, the corresponding service benefits and pay advantages attached to that post were not extended to them, despite repeated representations.
2.1. A communication dated 28.02.2014, issued by the Secretary, JDA to the Joint Secretary, State Government, affirmed that the petitioners had been working as Electrician Grade-I since 05.10.2008 and, in substance, performing duties akin to that of Road Light Inspectors. The communication also contained a recommendation for approving their appointment on vacant posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical), which further stands reinforced through internal office notes. It is also noteworthy that the pay grade of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and Road Light Inspector has historically remained identical.
2.2. The petitioners were initially engaged on daily-wage basis, later accorded semi-permanent and then permanent status, ultimately culminating in their promotion as Inspector, Road Light. They have now superannuated and claim pensionary benefits commensurate with the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). 2.3. Upon completion of 27 years of service, the petitioners were extended the selection scale, effective from 13.05.2015. The record further reflects that the cadre of Junior Engineers (Electrical) is a sanctioned post requiring approval from the State Government as it imposes financial liability upon the JDA. No such approval was formally obtained. The quota for filling posts of JEN is by direct recruitment, and the respondents contend that the (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:33:44 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 09:38:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48911] (3 of 7) [CW-2267/2017] petitioners never fulfilled the eligibility parameters for such recruitment.
2.4. Between 2002 and 2008, the designation of Inspector, Road Light underwent nomenclature revisions. It also emerges that from 2014 onwards the petitioners were drawing pay equivalent to that of Junior Engineer (Electrical). The Tribunal observed that all consequential benefits admissible to a Junior Engineer ought to be extended, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid. Hence the instant Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a holistic reading of the documents on record unmistakably reveals that respondent No.1 has arbitrarily and unjustifiably withheld approval for appointing the petitioners as Junior Engineer (Electrical), despite a conscious and lawful decision taken by the JDA and despite adequate vacancies in the cadre. This inaction, according to counsel, strikes at the root of administrative fairness and violates the petitioners' legitimate expectation arising from their long-standing service and the Authority's repeated recommendations.
3.1. It is urged that the petitioners have been continuously discharging the duties of Road-Light/Electrical Inspector since 05.09.2008, and possess the requisite qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Both the posts Road-Light Inspector and Junior Engineer carry the same pay scale, duties of identical nature, and equivalent qualification requirements. Therefore, denying them the status and benefits of Junior Engineer, despite actual performance of duties on par with the cadre, is manifestly arbitrary.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:33:44 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 09:38:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48911] (4 of 7) [CW-2267/2017] 3.2. Counsel further contends that Annexures 10-12 clearly demonstrate that the competent authority had determined the petitioners' suitability for appointment as Junior Engineer and had accordingly sought approval from the State Government. Respondent No. 1's inertia, without any cogent or legally sustainable reason, is violative of the principles of good governance and inimical to the functioning of a welfare-oriented state. Thus, he prayed that the writ petition deserves to be allowed on all counts.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues that, under the JDA Act, 2009 and the UIT Act, 1959, the power to sanction posts vests exclusively in the State Government. Appointment or promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) entails financial implications and therefore cannot be implemented unless the post is duly sanctioned along with requisite budgetary allocation.
4.1. It is further contended that the cadre of Junior Engineer is intended to be filled primarily through direct recruitment. In the absence of sanctioned posts, the petitioners cannot claim promotion or absorption into the cadre as a matter of right. The Authority has forwarded several communications to the State Government, but no approval has been obtained. 4.2. The respondents further assert that no junior person has been promoted in preference to the petitioners, nor has any infringement of their legal rights been demonstrated. As such, no statutory or constitutional right of the petitioners has been violated, and the writ petition is devoid of merit.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:33:44 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 09:38:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48911] (5 of 7) [CW-2267/2017]
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
5.1. Upon an exhaustive appraisal of the pleadings, documentary corpus, and dialectical submissions canvassed at the Bar, this Court discerns no ambiguity in the factual substratum: the petitioners have, since 05.09.2008, been continuously entrusted with, and have in fact discharged, functions that are substantively congruent with those of a Junior Engineer (Electrical), albeit under the titular façade of Inspector, Road Light. Such functional equivalence is not merely incidental but is expressly corroborated through the authoritative communication dated 28.02.2014 issued by the Secretary, JDA, which unequivocally acknowledges that the petitioners were performing duties commensurate with the higher technical echelon and, indeed, warranted regularisation against the cadre of Junior Engineer.
5.2. The respondents have conspicuously failed to dislodge this factual position or demonstrate any rational nexus for withholding the concomitant service emoluments. The Court is compelled to observe that the respondents have, in effect, exacted higher responsibilities from the petitioners while simultaneously withholding the legitimate incidents of that higher office, thereby creating a discordant and constitutionally impermissible disparity. 5.3. The doctrine of "equal remuneration for commensurate functional responsibility", which flows from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, stands squarely attracted in the present matrix. It is a settled tenet of service jurisprudence that where the (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:33:44 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 09:38:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48911] (6 of 7) [CW-2267/2017] employer, through sustained administrative practice, deploys an employee in a role possessing higher responsibilities, technical sophistication, and supervisory attributes, the employer cannot evade the corresponding pecuniary and promotional consequences by sheltering behind the veil of nomenclature or procedural rigidity.
5.4. The plea that the petitioners lacked formal sanction from the State Government or were not inducted through the direct recruitment channel is rendered otiose in the peculiar factual continuum herein, for the petitioners do not stake a claim to appointment on the post of Junior Engineer; rather, they seek recognition of the functional parity that the employer itself exacted for a protracted span of years. Administrative convenience cannot mutate into administrative arbitrariness, nor can procedural formalism extinguish substantive entitlement accrued through decades of consistent functional deployment. 5.5. This Court further notes that the petitioners, having completed 27 years of blemish-free and uninterrupted service, and having been granted the selection scale thereof, have acquired a vested expectation that their service trajectory be acknowledged in a manner consonant with jurisprudential fairness and institutional equity. To deny them parity despite official documentation acknowledging their equivalence would result in a palpable miscarriage of administrative justice. 5.6. Thus, this Court is irresistibly persuaded that the petitioners are entitled to the status of Inspector (Road Light) from 2008 and (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:33:44 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 09:38:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:48911] (7 of 7) [CW-2267/2017] the status and consequential pecuniary entitlements of Junior Engineer (Electrical) from 2014, reckoning that during this period their remuneration already aligned with the scale attached to the latter post.
6. In consequence of the foregoing deliberation, the writ petition is allowed, and it is hereby directed that:
a. The petitioners shall be accorded the status of Inspector (Road Light) with retrospective effect from 05.09.2008.
b. With effect from 2014, the petitioners shall be extended the status, pay emoluments, and all consequential service and retiral benefits equivalent to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical).
c. Any monetary disbursements already effected shall be duly appropriated and reconciled while computing arrears. d.All consequential financial and administrative benefits emanating from this judgment shall be released to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
6.1. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in toto, in the manner delineated hereinabove. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J 193-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:33:44 PM) (Downloaded on 21/11/2025 at 09:38:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)