Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramdeo Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:39545) on 23 September, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:39545]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14483/2024

1.       Ramdeo Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 59 Years,
         R/o Village Bajroli, Post Miran, Via Patoda, Tehsil
         Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
2.       Shri Ram Dhayal S/o Ladu Ram Dhayal, Aged About 61
         Years, R/o VPO Madhopura, Via Balaran, Tehsil
         Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
         Finance (Rules Division) Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4.       District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sikar.
5.       Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
         Dhod, Dist. Sikar.
6.       Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
         Dantaramgarh, Dist. Sikar.
                                                                 ----Respondents
                            Connected With
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11362/2024

1.       Pokhar Singh S/o Asha Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
         Beri, Via Kudan, Dist. Sikar
2.       Munni Devi D/o Hardeva Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
         Vill. Kanwarpura, Post Kanwarpura, Tehsil Sikar, Dist.
         Sikar
3.       Sultan Singh S/o Surja Ram Bhaskar, Aged About 62
         Years, R/o Ghassu, Dist. Sikar
4.       Jagdish Prasad S/o Chunnilal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
         Vpo Pirali, Dist. Sikar
5.       Banwarilal S/o Ram Deva Ram Bijarniya, Aged About 61
         Years, R/o Vpo Piprali, Dist. Sikar
6.       Banwarilal Khinchad S/o Dana Ram Khinchad, Aged About
         61 Years, R/o PO Bhuma Bada, Via Jajod, Tehsil
         Laxmangarh, Dist. Sikar
7.       Niwas Bhamu S/o Late Sanwar Ram Bhamu, Aged About
         58 Years, R/o Bheirupura, Dist. Sikar
8.       Ram Niwas Bhamu S/o Pokhar Singh Bhamu, Aged About
         56 Years, R/o Bherupura, Dist. Sikar
9.       Mohan Singh S/o Kana Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
         Beebeepur Bada, Post Beebeepur Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur,
         Dist. Sikar
10.      Ram Niwas S/o Ram Chandra Singh, Aged About 54

                     (Downloaded on 23/09/2024 at 09:09:12 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:39545]                   (2 of 5)                       [CW-14483/2024]


         Years, R/o Jairthi (Subhash Nagar) Dist. Sikar
11.      Om Prakash S/o Magha Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
         Kirdoli, Dist. Sikar
12.      Hari Singh Pachar S/o Sukhdeo Singh, Aged About 57
         Years, R/o Pachron Ki Dhani, Post Bhojasar Bada, Via
         Patoda, Dist. Sikar.
13.      Prahlad Singh Naga S/o Chand Bihari, Aged About 59
         Years, R/o Ward No.01, Dist. Sikar.
14.      Shrawan Kumar Birkh S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 57
         Years, R/o Vpo Hardayal Pura Via Piprali, District Sikar
15.      Chhotu Ram S/o Goma Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
         Vpo Jachas, Via Khoor, District Sikar
16.      Bhagirathmal S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
         Tasar Bari, Via Tatanwa, Dist. Sikar
17.      Jagan Singh S/o Deva Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
         Vpo Piparli, Dist. Sikar.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
         Finance (Rules Division) Secretariat, Jaipur
2.       Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
3.       Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
4.       District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sikar
5.       Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
         Dhod, Dist. Sikar
6.       District Education          Officer       (Elementary       Education),
         Dungarpur
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Hans Raj Nimbar.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Kamlesh Sharma.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

23/09/2024

1. 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

[2024:RJ-JD:39545] (3 of 5) [CW-14483/2024]

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 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

[2024:RJ-JD:39545] (4 of 5) [CW-14483/2024]

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."

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."

[2024:RJ-JD:39545] (5 of 5) [CW-14483/2024]

2. For the self same reasons, the present writ petitions are

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.

4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made