Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kailash Chanra Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:37442) on 20 August, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:37442]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14360/2025
Kailash Chanra Vyas S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 61 Years, R/
o Old Brahampuri, Samdari, Tehsil Samdari, District Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer (Secondary Edu.), Balotra.
4. District Education Officer (Elementary Edu.), Balotra.
5. The Dy. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
20/08/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by
this Court 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).
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Department does not
refute the above submission and agrees that the present issue
would be covered by the said judgment.
3. In the case of Smt. Saroj Bala Bhatt (supra), it was
observed and held as under:
[2025:RJ-JD:37442] (2 of 4) [CW-14360/2025]
"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already granted can be withdrawn, were under consideration in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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:37442] (3 of 4) [CW-14360/2025]
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."
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also
disposed of on the same terms and conditions as in the case of
Smt. Saroj Bala Bhatt (supra).
[2025:RJ-JD:37442] (4 of 4) [CW-14360/2025]
5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition. The respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
109-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
