[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chain Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:52978) on 6 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52978]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23783/2025
1. Chain Khan S/o Banke Khan, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Peeravas, Madhasar, District Barmer, Raj.
2. Maga Ram Choudhary S/o Teja Ram Godara, Aged About
64 Years, R/o Kishne Ka Tala, Batadu, District Barmer,
Raj.
3. Nathu Ram Meghwal S/o Nawala Ram, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Jasnath Pura, Pareu, District Barmer, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural
Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Barmer.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Barmer.
6. The Dy. Director, Pension & Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gorkh Singh
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
06/12/2025
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the subject matter in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court on 25.07.2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:50:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52978] (2 of 4) [CW-23783/2025]
No.19638/2022 titled as 'Govind Singh Chundawat & Ors. Vs
State of Rajasthan & Ors.' along with connected writ petitions.
2. The aforesaid order dated 25.07.2023 reads as follows:
"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 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can be withdrawn, were under consideration in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
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:50:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52978] (3 of 4) [CW-23783/2025]
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 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
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:50:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52978] (4 of 4) [CW-23783/2025]
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."
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).
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."
3. The case of the petitioners shall also be considered in the
light of the aforesaid order.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in same
terms as passed in the case of Govind Singh Chundwat (supra).
5. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
98s-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:50:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
