Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Asha Vyas vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 October, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:43589]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17577/2024

1.       Smt. Asha Vyas W/o Shri Sushil Vyas, Aged About 64
         Years, R/o 146, Ward No. 04 Sadar Bajar, Chanduji Ka
         Gara, Banswara, District Banswara-327001 (Rajasthan).
2.       Smt. Nirmala Ameta W/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Joshi,
         Aged About 58 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Subhash Marg,
         Bagidora, Banswara, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
3.       Smt. Vimla Bamaniya W/o Shri Poonam Chand Bamaniya,
         Aged About 60 Years, R/o Naya Talab, Post Paraheda,
         Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Rajasthan).
4.       Smt. Manjula Pathak W/o Shri Het Lal Pathak, Aged About
         62    Years,       R/o      Village      Talwara,        Banswara,         District
         Banswara (Rajasthan).
5.       Smt. Urmila Porwal W/o Mishri Lal Porwal, Aged About 63
         Years, R/o 2-C-36, Housing Board, District Banswara.
6.       Smt. Sheela Joshi W/o Shri Shankar Lal Joshi, Aged
         About 64 Years, R/o Village And Post Saredi, District
         Banswara (Raj.).
7.       Smt. Ganga Panwar W/o Dinesh Chandra, Aged About 64
         Years, R/o Jawahar Colony, Partapur, Garhi, District
         Banswara.
8.       Jagdish Chandra Pathak S/o Shri Natwar Lal Pathak, Aged
         About 62 Years, R/o Tirupati Nagar, Udaipur Road
         Banswara, District Banswara (Rajasthan).
9.       Smt. Bharti Joshi W/o Shri Hetlal Joshi, Aged About 64
         Years,      R/o      Bagidora,        Banswara,              District   Banswara
         (Rajasthan).
10.      Sharda W/o Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
         Kalika Mata, Banswara, District Banswara (Rajasthan).
11.      Smt. Devangna Shukla W/o Shri Kaushik Dave, Aged
         About       65    Years,      R/o     Pratap       Circle,       Udaipur    Road,
         Banswara, District Banswara (Rajasthan).
12.      Smt. Savatri Kansara W/o Shri Gordhan Lal Kansara,
         Aged About 66 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Pratappur, District
         Banswara (Raj.).
13.      Smt. Madhubala Nagar W/o Shri Padam Shankar Nagar,
         Aged About 67 Years, R/o Nagarwada, Banswara, District


                          (Downloaded on 24/10/2024 at 09:49:13 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:43589]                    (2 of 5)                        [CW-17577/2024]


         Banswara (Raj.).
14.      Smt. Bhadra Sheela Joshi W/o Shri Arvind Kumar Joshi,
         Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village And Post Varda, District
         Dungarpur (Rajasthan).
15.      Smt. Niranjana Dave W/o Shri Gajendra Kumar Dave,
         Aged About 64 Years, R/o D/58, Punravas Colony,
         Sagwara, District Dungarpur (Raj.).
16.      Smt. Kokila Divedi W/o Shri Kumud Chandra Divedi, Aged
         About 63 Years, R/o Village Uddaya, Post Silohi, Via
         Galiyakot, District Dungarpur (Rajasthan).
17.      Smt. Malti Sharma W/o Shri Shailendra Sharma, Aged
         About 61 Years, R/o House No. 323/28, Behind Ram
         Mandir, Bhajanganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
         The Government, Department Of Education, Secretariat,
         Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       The    Director,    Secondary           Education,       Bikaner,   District
         Bikaner (Rajasthan).
3.       The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
         Bikaner (Raj.).
4.       The District Education Officer (Hq), Elementary Education
         Dungarpur, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
5.       The District Education Officer (Hq), Secondary Education
         Dungarpur, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
6.       The District Education Officer (Hq), Elementary Education
         Banswara, District Banswara (Raj.)
7.       The District Education Officer (Hq), Secondary Education
         Banswara, District Banswara (Raj.)
8.       The District Education Officer (Hq), Secondary Education
         Ajmer, District Ajmer (Raj.)
9.       The District Education Officer (Hq), Elementary Education
         Ajmer, District Ajmer (Raj.)
10.      The     Director,      Pension          And       Pensioners        Welfare
         Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                  ----Respondents


                      (Downloaded on 24/10/2024 at 09:49:13 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:43589]                       (3 of 5)                        [CW-17577/2024]



For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya
For Respondent(s)              :



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

23/10/2024

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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

on04.08.2022, 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 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 Benchheld 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

[2024:RJ-JD:43589] (4 of 5) [CW-17577/2024]

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/or27 will be considered their ad-hoc service will not be considered for the purpose of benefit of 9, 18 and/or 27years. But if benefit has already been granted for all the three scales; the same shall not be withdrawn and norecovery 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

[2024:RJ-JD:43589] (5 of 5) [CW-17577/2024]

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."

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."

2. 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).

3. 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.

(FARJAND ALI),J 66-divya/-