Raj HC sets aside RCSAT order granting pay protection to ex-teacher of Navodaya Vidyalaya

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that an employee of an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act has no vested right to claim pay protection or pensionary benefits under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR) upon appointment in State Government service. The Court set aside the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal which had granted such benefits to a former Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti teacher. pay protection

The order was passed by Justice Praveer Bhatnagar in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12900/2010, State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs Arjun Lal Bunkar & Anr., decided on February 18, 2026.

The writ petition challenged the judgment dated 07.04.2010 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, whereby respondent No.1 was granted pay protection for earlier service rendered at Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and directions were issued to compute such service for pensionary purposes.

The State contended that Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and does not fall within the ambit of government institutions governed by Article 309 of the Constitution. It was argued that Rule 26 of the RSR provides pay protection only to employees already in regular service of the State or Central Government institutions, and mere funding or regulatory control does not confer the status of a government servant.

The Court noted that it was undisputed that respondent No.1 was appointed as Headmaster after clearing the Rajasthan Public Service Commission examination and had previously worked as a teacher under the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti scheme. It was further admitted that the institution was registered under the Societies Act and functioned as a self-governing organisation, though funded through government grants.

Interpreting Rule 26 of the RSR, the Court reproduced the proviso permitting pay protection to persons already in regular service of the Government of India or other State Governments, including institutions of the Government of India and other State Governments, subject to conditions. However, the Court held that an educational institution registered as a society, even if adopting government service rules and operating under pervasive government control, cannot as a matter of right claim parity with Central or State Government employees.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs Bhagwan & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1315, wherein it was held that institutions registered under the Societies Registration Act are independent autonomous bodies administered by their own governing councils, and their employees cannot claim parity with government servants merely because the institution receives government funding or has government representation in its management.

The Court further observed that courts must refrain from interfering with policy decisions that may have cascading financial implications. Grant of benefits such as pay protection and pensionary advantages to employees of autonomous bodies could have significant financial consequences and such matters fall within the domain of the executive.

Reference was also made to Circular No. F9(109)FD/Rules/2005 dated 01.09.2025 issued by the State Government, clarifying that protection of pay under Rules 24 and 26 of the RSR is permissible only to government servants already in service after regular selection as per relevant service rules. The circular expressly stated that these provisions are not applicable to employees of State PSUs, autonomous bodies, local bodies or Panchayati Raj institutions.

The Court held that the Tribunal had passed the impugned judgment entirely ignoring the nature of respondent No.1’s earlier employment and the clear legal position governing pay protection. The subsequent circulars and memoranda relied upon by the respondent did not extend the benefit of Rule 26 RSR to appointees from autonomous bodies.

Holding that an employee of an autonomous body has no vested right to claim pay protection or pensionary benefits arising from previous employment, the Court found the Tribunal’s order unsustainable.

Resultantly, the writ petition was allowed and the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal granting pay protection and pensionary benefits to respondent No.1 was set aside.

Case Title
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs Arjun Lal Bunkar & Anr.

Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12900/2010

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar

Date of Order
18/02/2026

Advocates
For the Petitioners: Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.G.C.
For the Respondents: Mr. Akhil Simlote with Mr. Dikshsant Jain

Judgments Relied Upon
State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs Bhagwan & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1315