Lal Singh Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1055 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10447/2017

Lal Singh Chouhan Son Of Shri Kalyan Singh, By Caste Chouhan, Resident Of Village Post Degai, Tehsil And District Pali At Present Residing At Rishabhdev, District Udaipur

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Devesthan Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Commissioner, Devesthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur

3. Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan Department, Rishabhdev, District Udaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Joshi through VC

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

21/01/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the subject

matter in issue is covered by the judgment passed in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.3483/2006 (Smt. Kanchan Devi Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) and the same judgment has been affirmed by

the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.12.2015.

Petitioner has claimed that he is also entitled for regularization

w.e.f. year 1992 in terms of the judgment passed in case of Smt.

Kanchan Devi (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also

relied upon the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.214/2009 (Rajesh Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

(2 of 2) [CW-10447/2017]

Learned counsel for the respondents has not refuted the

position that the case of petitioner is duly covered by the

judgment passed in case of Smt. Kanchan Devi (supra). The only

argument raised by counsel for the respondents is that the

Department has framed the rules governing regularization of

services of employees vide Devasthan Nidhi Karamchari (Revised

Pay and Allowances) Rules, 2010 (for short, "Rules of 2010") and

in terms of the Rules of 2010, the petitioner has been regularized

w.e.f. year 2010. Counsel states that as earlier there were no

rules governing services of the employees of the Department, they

cannot be regularized from any previous date.

The submission of learned counsel for the respondents

cannot be held to be tenable as it cannot be the proposition of law

that in absence of any service rules, the services of employees

would never be counted for the purpose of regularization. Even

otherwise, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the

case of Smt. Kanchan Devi (supra).

Hence, the present writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is

held to be entitled for benefit of regularization as well as all the

consequential benefits w.e.f. 12.10.1992.

The necessary steps for compliance of this order shall be

taken by the respondent-Department within four months from

today.

(REKHA BORANA),J

9-T.Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)