Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ranjna Jain vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 November, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14748/2022
Ranjna Jain W/o Shri Rajmal Jain, Aged About 53 Years,
Byecaste Jain, R/o V.p.o. Bhiluda, Sagwara, 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, Sagwara, District
Dungarpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Bhawana Jangid.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
11/11/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order in Smt.
Saroj Bala Bhatt & Anr. v. State & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.14444/2015, decided on 4.8.2022, which in turn has been
decided based on the order in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v.
Chandra Ram : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.589/2015, decided on
7.7.2017 and, therefore, similar order may be passed.
Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that
insofar as the direction given in the case of Chandra Ram (supra)
(2 of 4) [CW-14748/2022]
is concerned, the respondents have no objection, however, the
petitioner is not entitled to claim relief 'B' i.e. refund, as no such
direction has been given in the case of Chandra Ram (supra).
In view of the fact that petitioner is seeking relief as granted
in the case of Chandra Ram (supra) and Smt. Saroj Bala Bhatt,
wherein, no direction regarding relief 'B' i.e. refund, has been
given, therefore, obviously the petitioner is not entitled to any
such relief.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Saroj
Bala Bhatt (supra) inter alia directed as under:-
"The present writ petitions have been filed
against the order dated 31.10.2015 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the issues 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withdrawn, were under consideration in the matter of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.
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
(3 of 4) [CW-14748/2022]
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 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 of 4) [CW-14748/2022]
Learned counsel for the respondents also
admitted the issue in question to be covered by
Chandra Ram's case (supra).
In view of the ratio as laid down in Chandra
Ram's case (supra), the present writ petitions are
allowed on the same terms and conditions.
All the pending applications also stand disposed
of."
The present writ petition is also disposed of with directions
as given in the case of Smt. Saroj Bala Bhatt (supra).
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
38-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
