SAW1016/2008 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1016/2008 In S.B. Civil Writ petition No.4112/2007 With D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl.No.976/2008 The Deputy Director (Administration), Directorate Literacy and Continuance Education Gopi Mag, Jaipur and Another Vs. Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma and Another Date of Order ::: 15.11.2010 Present Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Mr. Arun Mishra Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri R.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General for appellants #### By the Court (Per Hon'ble Mohammad Rafiq, J.):- This appeal is barred by limitation having been filed with delay of 110 days. For stated reasons, delay in filing appeal is condoned and application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is accordingly allowed. We have heard matter on merits. Shri R.P. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants, has argued that learned Single Judge has erred in law in dismissing writ petition and upholding judgment of Rajasthan SAW1016/2008 // 2 // Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'Tribunal'). It was argued that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that real controversy in the matter was with regard to computation of service of respondent-workman rendered by him in District Court with effect from 23.09.1995 to April, 1997. Respondent- workman could not be granted pay protection under Section 26(1) of Rajasthan Service Rules because in that appointment he was working on temporary basis and that he was never confirmed. He was simply on probation at the time of leaving service. Having heard learned counsel for appellants and perused impugned award, we find that learned Labour Court has, while relying on judgments of Apex Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others – 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 18 and of this Court in Subhkaran Gaur and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – 2000 WLC (Raj.) 289, held that respondent-workman was earlier working with District court and his appointmnet in that court was on regular basis. On his fresh appointment on being selected by RPSC with appellants he would be entitled to pay protection because of provisions of Rule 26 (1) of the Rules. Such pay protection was SAW1016/2008 // 3 // rightly granted to him and could not be withdrawn thereafter because no fraud or misrepresentation was played by respondent- workman. In view of settled proposition of law referred to in judgment of Supreme Court and this court, relied on by learned Tribunal, we find that learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing writ petition and for same reason therefore, this appeal too is liable to be dismissed and we do accordingly. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal, stay application, filed therewith, also stands dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. (Arun Mishra) Acting CJ. //Jaiman//