Raj HC denies selection scale from ad hoc service, holds benefits accrue only after regularisation
HC says ad hoc Patwari not entitled to 9, 18, 27-year scales from initial appointment date.
Last Updated:
The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Patwari appointed on an ad hoc basis is not entitled to the benefits of 9, 18 and 27 years’ selection scale from the date of initial appointment, and such benefits can accrue only from the date of regularisation in service. inder singh
The judgment was delivered by Justice Praveer Bhatnagar in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9452/2005, Inder Singh Saini vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., pronounced on 19.02.2026.
The petitioner had sought directions to grant the benefit of selection scales for 9 and 18 years of service from the date of his initial appointment, along with annual grade increments and all consequential benefits and arrears.
As recorded in the judgment, the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari through an ad hoc order dated 05.04.1980 and later qualified the written examination. His services were regularised on 14.09.2004 in accordance with the circular dated 01.03.2000.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that he was entitled to selection scale and retiral benefits from the date of his ad hoc appointment. Reliance was placed on Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957, under which persons with fifteen years of service were exempted from the Patwar Examination and had been granted service benefits from their initial appointment date. The petitioner also relied upon earlier judgments including Gordhan Singh vs State of Rajasthan, Jamaluddin vs State of Rajasthan, and State of Rajasthan vs Farooq Ahmed.
The respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner was not eligible for selection scale benefits for 9, 18 and 27 years from the date of his ad hoc appointment, as his services stood regularised only in 2004 after qualifying the examination.
After considering the relevant rules, circulars and precedents, the High Court rejected the petitioner’s claim. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs Surendra Mohnot & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 77, which reaffirmed the earlier ruling in State of Rajasthan vs Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49. The Supreme Court had clarified that employees appointed on ad hoc, daily-wage or work-charged basis do not accrue benefits related to time-bound pay or stagnation increments unless expressly provided under the recruitment rules.
The High Court observed that the Supreme Court had categorically held that stagnation benefits were to be granted from the date of regularisation and not from the date of ad hoc appointment, particularly in the context of government orders dated 25.01.1992 and 17.02.1998.
The Court further noted that a valid claim to regular appointment requires satisfaction of four conditions: the appointment must be in a substantive capacity; it must be to a post within the service or substantive vacancy; it must adhere to statutory recruitment rules; and it must fall within the prescribed quota. An ad hoc appointment, the Court observed, is to a post and not to the cadre or service, and is not made in accordance with statutory recruitment rules.
Referring to the Finance Department circulars, the Court held that they consistently emphasised that only employees with regular appointments are eligible for benefits of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Ad hoc or temporary employees were explicitly excluded. Regularisation in the petitioner’s case was contingent upon passing the written examination prescribed under Rule 4 of the Land Revenue Rules.
The Court concluded that the judgments cited by the petitioner stood rendered inapplicable in view of the binding legal position laid down in Surendra Mohnot (supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title
Inder Singh Saini vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9452/2005
Citation
[2026:RJ-JP:7855]
Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur
Bench
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
Date of Pronouncement
19/02/2026
Advocates
For Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Singhal
For Respondents: Mr. Umesh Choudhary for Mr. V.D. Gathala
Judgments Relied Upon
State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs Surendra Mohnot & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 77
State of Rajasthan vs Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49
