Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Satya Narayan Suthar vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41510) on 1 December, 2023

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:41510]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17963/2023

1. Satya Narayan Suthar S/o Shri Varada Ji Suthar, Aged
About 58 Years, Mukam/post/tehsil Jhadol (Ph), District
Udaipur, (Raj.).
2. Kailash Chandra Jain S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain, Aged
About 54 Years, Village/post Jhadol (Ph), District Udaipur.
3. Bheru Lal Kumar S/o Tulsi Ram Kumar, Aged About 55
Years, Mukam/post Gogla, Tehsil Jhadol (Ph), District
Udaipur.
4. Naahar Singh Padihar S/o Shri Khumaan Singh Ji, Aged
About 60 Years, Village Bhura, Post Ogana, Tehsil Jhadol
(Ph), District Udaipur.
5. Surendra Kumar Jain S/o Shri Shanti Lal Jain, Aged About
59 Years, Village/post Jhadol, Tehsil Jhadol (Ph), District
Udaipur.
6. Bharat Paliwal S/o Shri Vardi Shankar, Aged About 58
Years, Village/post Bra.ka. Kherwara, Tehsil Jhadol (Ph),
District Udaipur.
7. Naresh Singh Jhala S/o Shri Devi Singh Jhala, Aged About
58 Years, Village Amarpura, Post Gogla, Tehsil Jhadol
(Ph), District Udaipur.
8. Nana Lal Nanama S/o Shri Kalu Ji Nanama, Aged About
64 Years, Mukam Chechalaya, Post Gorana, Tehsil Jhadol
(Ph), District Udaipur.
9. Dal Chand Paliwal S/o Shri Tola Ram Ji, Aged About 61
Years, Mukam/post Bra. Ka Kherwada, Tehsil Jhadol (Ph),
District Udaipur.
10. Abhay Singh Jhala S/o Shri Sajjan Singh Jhala, Aged
About 58 Years, Village/post Jhadol, Tehsil Jhadol (Ph),
District Udaipur.
11. Hari Singh Jhala S/o Shri Ram Singh Jhala, Aged About
56 Years, Mukam/post Dewas, Tehsil Jhadol (Ph), District
Udaipur, (Raj.).
12. Poonam Chand Bhat S/o Shri Khyali Lal Bhat, Aged About
56 Years, Mukam Badrana, Post Gogla, Tehsil Jhadol (Ph),
District Udaipur.
13. Ajad Singh Jhala S/o Shri Ram Singh Jhala, Aged About

(Downloaded on 01/12/2023 at 08:55:27 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41510] (2 of 5) [CW-17963/2023]

58 Years, Mukam Nayagaon, Post Khakhad, Tehsil Jhadol
(Ph), District Udaipur.
14. Paras Mal Jain S/o Hira Lal Jai, Aged About 55 Years,
Presently Residing At 102, Mahavir Colony, Near Ganesh
Mandir Bedla Road, Mukam/post/tehsil- Badgaon, District
Udaipur.
15. Mohammed Irfan Khan S/o Shri Mohammed Noor Khan,
Aged About 63 Years, 252, B- Block, Sajjan Nagar, Malla
Talai, 80 Fit Road, Udaipur, District Udaipur.
16. Tulsi Das S/o Shri Haridas Sanchihar, Aged About 67
Years, Village Badrana, Tehsil Jhadol, District Udaipur.
17. Smt. Pushpa Mishra W/o Kirti Kumar Sukla, Aged About
55 Years, D/o Shri Lakhanji Mishra, R/o Village Jhadol
(Phalasia), District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
18. Smt. Saroj Jain W/o Shri Bhupendra Kumar Jain, Aged
About 58 Years, Village And Post- Kotra Chhavani, Tehsil
Kotra, District Udaipur (Raj.).
19. Smt. Mala Kumar Jain W/o Shri Laxmichand Dhanawat,
Aged About 61 Years, D/o Suresh Chandra Jain R/o
Village And Post Kolyari, Tehsil Jhadol, Panchayat
Phalasia, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
20. Girdhari Lal Joshi S/o Narayan Lal Joshi, Aged About 67
Years, Village And Post Chandwas, Panchayat Samiti
Kherwada, Tehsil Jhadol (Ph), District Udaipur.
21. Smt. Sudha Sharma W/o Shri Onkar Lal Joshi, Aged
About 62 Years, Village Post Phalasia, Tehsil Jhadol (Ph),
District Udaipur.
22. Sukh Lal Patel S/o Shri Kachara Ji Patel, Aged About 60
Years, Village Mokarwada, Post Suli, Tehsil Kherwada,
District Udaipur, Raj.
23. Makan Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Naval Singh, Aged About
60 Years, Village Nichla Talab, Post Katarwas, Tehsil
Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).
24. Samrit Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Jawan Singh Ji, Aged
About 63 Years, Village Mokarwara, Post Solai, Tehsil
Kherwara, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
25. Moti Lal Meena S/o Punja Ji Meena, Aged About 59 Years,
R/o Village Sarada, District Salumbar.

(Downloaded on 01/12/2023 at 08:55:27 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41510] (3 of 5) [CW-17963/2023]

26. Mugla Ram S/o Lala Ji, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Near
Sub Jail, Kotda, District Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. District Elementary Education Officer, Salumbar, Udaipur.
4. District Education Officer, Elementary (Legal), Udaipur.
5. Block Elementary Education Officer, Gogunda, Udaipur.
6. Block Elementary Education Officer, Sayara, Udaipur.
7. Block Elementary Education Officer, Jhadol (Falasiya),
Udaipur.
8. Block Elementary Education Officer, Sarada, District
Salumbar.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gulab Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Bhawana Jangir, Dy. G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

01/12/2023

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a

judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.14444/2015 (Smt. Saroj Bala Bhatt & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected matter, decided on

04.08.2022, which reads 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

[2023:RJ-JD:41510] (4 of 5) [CW-17963/2023]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:41510] (5 of 5) [CW-17963/2023]

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."

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."

For the self same reasons, the present writ petition is

disposed of in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in

the case of Smt. Saroj Bala Bhatt (supra). Stay application

also stands disposed of.

It is made clear that any recovery made by the

respondents in pursuance of the grant of ACP, the petitioners

will be free to move an appropriate representations in

accordance with law for the refund of the recovery.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 32-Tikam/-