Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anandi Patidar vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15033/2022
Anandi Patidar W/o Shri Natwar Lal Patidar, Aged About 59
Years, Byecaste Patidar, R/o Village Nadiya, District Dungarpur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner (Rajasthan.)
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner (Rajasthan).
4. Chief District Education Officer, Dungarpur (Rajasthan).
5. Block Elementary Education Officer, Galiyakot, District
Dungarpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Godara
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Bhawna Jangid
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
15/12/2022
1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 31.10.2015, passed by District Education Officer,
Elementary Education, Dungarpur, whereby the earlier order vide
which the monetary benefits in pursuance to the selection grade
were granted to the petitioners has been ordered to be cancelled.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue
as to from which date the benefit of selection grade and
regularisation has to be granted and whether the benefit already
granted can be withdrawn, were under consideration in the matter
of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Chandra Ram (D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.589/2015) decided on 07.07.2017.
(2 of 3) [CW-15033/2022]
3. While replying to the said issues, the Division Bench held as
under:
"37. QUESTION A
For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of
the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of
Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi and Surendra Mahnot & Ors.
(supra); we are of the opinion that the respondent -
employee would stand regularized from the date of
regularization in service and not prior to that.
38. QUESTION B
Taking into consideration the recent decision, prior to
two decades the regularization period was not
questioned by anybody, therefore, in a writ petition filed
by the petitioner it will not be appropriate for us to allow
the Government to end the regularization. However,
regularization will be from the date of regularization
done by the department and not prior thereto.
39. QUESTION C
The contention of the counsel for the employees is
required to be accepted and it cannot be annulled
unless it has been annulled by appropriate authority.
However, the benefits shall not be withdrawn but in
future when the benefits are to be accorded for further
promotion, the same will be considered on the basis of
new law declared by the Supreme Court i.e. period will
be considered from the date of regularization. When the
future benefit of 9, 18 and/or 27 will be considered their
ad-hoc service will not be considered for the purpose of
benefit of 9, 18 and/or 27 years. But if benefit has
already been granted for all the three
scales; the same shall not be withdrawn and no
recovery will be made from the employees.
40. QUESTION D
In view of our answer in above matters, it is very clear
that for the purpose of regularisation the date of
regularisation will be from the date of regular
appointment.
In that view of the matter, there cannot be two dates
for the purpose of seniority and the other benefits.
However, earlier services will be considered for the
purpose of the same if there is a shortage in pensionary
benefits.
41. QUESTION E
In view of the observations made by the Supreme
Court, as referred to above, the ad-hocism will not
be considered for seniority. In that view of the matter,
there will be only one date for regularization, date of
regularizing ad-hoc period will not have any effect on
seniority. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs.
Gopa Ram in DB Civil Special Appeal No.44/2016,
decided on 18.04.2016 had no right to distinguish the
(3 of 3) [CW-15033/2022]
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish
Narayan Chaturvedi (Supra) and State of Rajasthan vs.
Surendra Mohnot & Ors.(supra). Thus, the decision of
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Gopa Ram (supra) did not
lay down correct law. The correct law would be the law
declared by the Supreme Court in the two judgments
referred hereinabove."
4. Learned counsel for the respondents also admitted the issue
in question to be covered by Chandra Ram's case (supra).
5. In view of the ratio as laid down in Chandra Ram's case
(supra), the present writ petition is allowed on the same terms
and conditions.
6. The stay application also stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
57-pooja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
