Parmanand Sharma And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 9 December, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:53301]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9830/2020
Satya Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Vardi Shankar Sharma, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o Gopalwara Road, Mandal, District Bhilwara
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissioner And Joint Government
Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara,
District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4258/2018
1. Parmanand Sharma S/o Shri Moti Lalji, R/o Alawas, Sojat
Road, District Pali.
2. Sohan Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Arjun Singh Shankhla, R/o
Sojat Road, District Pali.
3. Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Arjun Singh Shankhla, R/o Sojat
Road, District Pali.
4. Shantilal Sen S/o Shri Poonam Chand Sen, R/o Sojat
Road, District Pali.
5. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Rai Dhawan, R/o Sojat
Road, District Pali.
6. Smt. Sunder W/o Shri Mithu Singh Sankhla, R/o Sojat
Road, District Pali.
7. Dhagla Ram S/o Shri Devra Ram Prajapat, R/o Village
Musaliya, Gram Panchayat Sojat Road, District Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:11:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/12/2025 at 09:04:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53301] (2 of 8) [CW-9830/2020]

2. The Additional Commissioner And Joint Government
Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur,
District, Jodhpur.
4. The Chief Executive Officer., Zila Parishad, Pali, District
Pali.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4259/2018
1. Ramesh Chandra Bhat S/o Shri Jamanlal Bhat, R/o Behind
Post Office, Mandal, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara.
2. Chhotu Singh Rajput S/o Shri Mohan Singh, R/o Village
Kolpura, Post Kotadi, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.
3. Lalit Shanker Bhatt S/o Shri Jamlalal Bhatt, R/o Nai Nagri,
Mandal, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissioner And Joint Government
Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara,
District Bhilwara.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayram Saran with
Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
Mr. Devendra Deelu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitesh Choudhary

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order 09/12/2025

1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue is covered

by a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Kanhiya Lal

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:11:07 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53301] (3 of 8) [CW-9830/2020]

Nai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 6469/2020 (decided on 30.09.2022).

2. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the

aforesaid submission. He however submits that some of the

petitioners have since superannuated and hence, would be entitled

to notional benefits only.

3. So far as the above submission made by Counsel for the

respondents is concerned, the operative part of judgment in

Kanhiya Lal Nai (supra) in fact, already takes care of said

submission.

4. In Kanhiya Lal Nai (supra), the court observed and held as

under:-

"Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as 'Gate Keeper' vide order dated 05.08.1981 in Panchayat Samiti, Lunkaransar on temporary basis. The petitioner joined services on 14.08.1981 which were extended from time to time. In the year 1992, a resolution was adopted in the meeting of Panchyat Samiti, Lunkaransar dated 23.10.1992 whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Octroi Collector'.

After abolishment of octroi in the State of Rajasthan, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila parishad, Bikaner enquired about the status of employees working at Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar providing services related to octroi collection and consequently, had been rendered surplus. The Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar furnished necessary details pertaining to all the employees who had been rendered surplus to the Zila Parishad, Bikaner.

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:11:07 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53301] (4 of 8) [CW-9830/2020]

An order dated 06.08.1998, was passed by the State Government stating inter alia that the employees who were working in connection with collection and management of octroi shall not be retrenched from services. Subsequently, the petitioner continued in the employment of Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar uninterruptedly from the date of initial appointment i.e. 14.08.1981. The Zila Parishad, Bikaner vide letter dated 23.11.2007, forwarded a list of employees working in various Gram Panchayats falling under its jurisdiction for accommodation of employees on other posts who were rendered surplus due to abolition of octroi in the State of Rajasthan.

The Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 27.11.2016 allowed minimum pay- scale of class-IV to employees, who were discharging duties similar to the petitioner, after abolition of octroi. However, the name of the petitioner did not find a mention in the said list. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is that his services had been utilized by the respondent-department for 40 years without any break yet the same had not been regularised, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had continuously worked in the respondent-department for almost 40 years discharging duties in similar fashion as of a regular class-IV employee.

             It      was       further         submitted           that    Gram
          Panchayat,          Lunkaransar             and     Zila      Parishad,

Bikaner had time and again requested the State

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:11:07 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53301] (5 of 8) [CW-9830/2020]

Government through various communications along with furnishing necessary details, pertaining to the services discharged by the petitioner in the department for the purposes of regularisation but to no avail. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner had discharged duties in the respondent-department against the post of class-IV employee which were perennial in nature and it would be thus in violation of Article 39(d) r/w with Article 43 of the Constitution of India if regularisation of the petitioner in the pay scale applicable for employees working against class-IV posts is not allowed to him. Counsel urged that the petitioner during pendency of the writ petition had stood superannuated from services in the month of October 2021, therefore, respondents may be directed to release pension and other retiral benefits by regularising petitioner's services from the year 1981.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not appointed through regular mode of selection for class-IV post. It was also submitted that the petitioner was engaged by Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar for collection of octroi on temporary basis, therefore after abolition of octroi in normal course, petitioner's services should have been retrenched but he was allowed to continue on humanitarian grounds pursuant to the order of the State Government dated 06.08.1998. It was submitted that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and after superannuation from services, the petitioner is not entitled to claim regularisation.

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:11:07 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53301] (6 of 8) [CW-9830/2020]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Indisputably, the petitioner had served the respondent department continuously for 40 years. From the record of the case, it is evident that Gram Panchayat, Lunkararsar and Zila Parishad, Bikaner on various occasions requested the State Government to regularise services of the petitioner. The communications sent to the State Government is indicative of the fact that petitioner had rendered satisfactory services continuously as class-IV employee. There is no denial in the reply that the services rendered by the petitioner are similar to that of any employee working against regular class-IV post. Further, the services of the petitioner were utilized by the department on its own without there being any cover of the court's order. The persons similarly situated to the petitioner were granted regular pay scale as was applicable for class-IV employees, vide order dated 27.11.2016, without annual increments. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court while adjudicating similar controversy in the case of Lala Ram Saini v the State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. CWP No.11509/2011, held as follows:

"This Court vide order dated 29.04.2013 allowed the petitioner to amend his prayer clause and as per his application for amendment, he had sought that he may be regularized on the post of Class-IV. It is an admitted position that the State Government has issued a notification on 27.02.2009 directing for regularizing of all the employees who were working as Class-IV on similar post

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:11:07 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53301] (7 of 8) [CW-9830/2020]

on temporary basis or even those who were appointed on irregular basis.

This Court in the case of Magan lal Damore Versus State of Rajasthan: SBCWP NO.6038/2013 decided on 09.08.2016 examined the similar controversy in the light of the circular of the State Government and found that such cases where regularization is rejected of employees working on temporary basis for more than 10 years long time were unjustified. In the said case, the order of rejecting prayer for regularization by the Government was quashed and set aside and directions were given to regularize the petitioner's services in the light of the circular dated 27.02.2009 upon having completed 10 years of uninterrupted service.

I have thoughtfully considered the facts of the present case and finds that the petitioner, admittedly as per the reply of the respondents, was working since 02.03.1983 as Bagwan (Gardner) (3 of 3) [CW-11509/2011] with the Panchayat Samiti and therefore, he can be said to have completed uninterrupted service from 1983 all throughout till he attained superannuation on 31.07.2020. Having rendered almost 37 years of service with the respondents, one cannot say that the service was on temporary basis. Such long service has to be treated as substantive service and the petitioner will be deemed to have been regularized in the light of the circular issued by the State Government. Any action on the part of the State or its authorities cannot deprive of person for claiming substantive right for the service which he has rendered with them. It is also noticed that he has been appointed vide order dated 24.9.1982 by Gram Panchayat,

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:11:07 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53301] (8 of 8) [CW-9830/2020]

Bansur to work as a Bagwan (Gardner) as there is an appointment order and continuity of service.

This court directs the respondents to treat the petitioner as regularly appointed Class-IV employee and further directs to release the petitioner's pension and retiral benefits treating him as Class-IV employee on substantive basis from 1983 up till date of retirement. The consequential benefits arising out of the above order shall also be released. The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months."

In the light of the aforequoted precedent judgment and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the respondents are directed to regularise services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment as a class-IV employee. Further, respondents are directed to release the pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any arrears of pay as a consequence of pay-fixation in the pay-scale applicable for class-IV employees.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs."

5. The present writ petitions are also disposed of on the same

terms and directions as in Kanhiya Lal Nai (supra).

6. Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 11-13 - Mak/-

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:11:07 PM)