[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagwati Shankar Thakur vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52416]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20382/2025
1. Bhagwati Shankar Thakur S/o Shri Heera Lal Thakur,
Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village And Post Thikariya,
Tehsil And Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
2. Renu Gupta W/o Shri Bharat Kumar Agarwal, Aged About
61 Years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Kushalgarh, Banswara,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
3. Vardhman Pindarma D/o Shri Mathura Lal Pindarma, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o Gandhi Road, Ward No.10,
Kushalgarh, Banswara, Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
4. Devilal Pathak S/o Shri Vijay Shankar Pathak, Aged About
60 Years, R/o Sutharwada, Badadiya Budhwa, Banswara,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
5. Kanak Tara Doshi S/o Shri Shambhu Lal Doshi, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o C/o Jagdish Chandra, Mahalaxmi
Nagar, Ward No. 3, Near Surat Bus Stand, Kushalgarh,
Banswara, Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
6. Smt. Usha Joshi W/o Shri Dilip Joshi, Aged About 55
Years, R/o House No. 867, Brahman Mohalla, Village And
Post Anjana, Tehsil Ghari, Banswara, Distt. Banswara
(Raj.)
7. Smt. Saroj Shah W/o Shri Mahendra Shah, Aged About
56 Years, R/o Rajput Mohalla, Anandpuri, Banswara
District Banswara (Raj.)
8. Dhaneshwar Bariya S/o Shri Jogdaji Bariya, Aged About
61 Years, R/o Village And Post Randi Kalan, Panchayat
Samiti Sajjangarh, Banswara, Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
9. Ila Devi Labana W/o Shri Ramesh Singh Labana, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o Hanuman Temple Road, Tanda Ralna,
Panchayat Samiti Sajjangarh, Banswara, Distt. Banswara
(Raj.)
----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 (Raj.).
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).
4. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
6. The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya (Through
VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, DGC
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 05:06:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/12/2025 at 09:01:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52416] (2 of 4) [CW-20382/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
04/12/2025
1. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the case
of the petitioners is squarely covered by the order passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 04.08.2022 in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 14444/2015 (Saroj Bala Bhatt & Anr. Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected matter.
2. The order dated 04.08.2022 passed in the case of Saroj Bala
Bhatt (supra) reads as follows:
"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
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 05:06:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52416] (3 of 4) [CW-20382/2025]
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 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
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 05:06:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52416] (4 of 4) [CW-20382/2025]
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."
3. Considering the above judgment, the present writ petition is
disposed of in light of the order passed in the case of Saroj Bala
Bhatt (supra).
4. 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 appropriate representations in accordance with law for the
refund of the recovery.
5. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
316-BhumikaP/-
(Uploaded on 04/12/2025 at 05:06:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
