Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parasmal Dhandhal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:16880) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:16880]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6219/2025
1. Parasmal Dhandhal S/o Jawar Ram, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o 249 Ramdev Colony, Kharal, Tehsil And District -
Jalore.
2. Madan Lal Dhandhal S/o Junja Ram, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Ramdev Colony, Kharal, Tehsil And District-
Jalore.
3. Damodar Prasad S/o Mool Shankarji, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Balwara, Tehsil-Sayla, District-Jalore.
4. Rekha Jain D/o Manohar Lal Jain, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o House No. 136 Azad Nagar, Behind Ram Dham,
Bhilwara, District-Bhilwara.
5. Balmukand Vaishnav S/o Jamna Lal, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Village Koshithal, District-Bhilwara.
6. Jagdish Chandra Tripathi S/o Murlidhar Tripathi, Aged
About 64 Years, R/o Village-Korai, Tehsil And District-
Bhilwara.
7. Trilok Chand Kumawat S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 62
Years, R/o Village-Korai, Tehsil And District-Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer, (Secondary Edu.) Jalore.
5. District Education Officer, (Elementary Edu.) Jalore.
6. District Education Officer, (Secondary Edu.) Bhilwara.
7. District Education Officer, (Elementary Edu.) Bhilwara.
8. The Dy. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jodhpur.
9. The Dy. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Udaipur.
----Respondents
[2025:RJ-JD:16880] (2 of 5) [CW-6219/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr, K.P.Raj Singh Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K.Mehta
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/04/2025
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
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 tobe 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
[2025:RJ-JD:16880] (3 of 5) [CW-6219/2025]
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
[2025:RJ-JD:16880] (4 of 5) [CW-6219/2025]
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."
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 in case any recovery is made by the
respondents in pursuance of the grant of ACP, the petitioners will
[2025:RJ-JD:16880] (5 of 5) [CW-6219/2025]
be free to move appropriate representations in accordance with
law for the refund of the recovery.
4. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
59-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
