Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Raj Kumar Verma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:7112) on 5 February, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:7112]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1194/2025

1. Raj Kumar Verma S/o Kanheya Lal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Nandray, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

2. Lal Chand Darji S/o Ladu Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Darji Mohalla, Kotadi, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

3. Ramesh Chandra Tamboli S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Brahampuri Kotadi, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

4. Harak Chand Parasar S/o Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Mansa, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

5. Bheru Lal Jat S/o Kalyanmal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Kakroliya Ghati, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

6. Bhagwan Singh Kanawat S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Bhomiya Ka Mohalla Kotadi, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

7. Hari Singh Dhabariya S/o Kanheya Lal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Lodha Mohalla Kotadi, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

8. Ishwar Lal Daroga S/o Bheru Lal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Dhokaliya Panchayat Lasaiya Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

9. Shanti Lal Pokharna S/o Sajjan Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar Kotadi, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

10. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Maheshpura, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

11. Jagish Chandra Nuwal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 69, Kanchan Veehar Extension Sanganer Road Bhilwara Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

12. Smt. Sumitra Bangar W/o Govind Lal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Akola Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

13. Gopal Lal Pancholi S/o Shokishan Pancholi, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Gega Ka Kheda Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.

14. Smt. Radha Devi Dad W/o Ram Gopal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o A377, Adarsh Nagar Bhilwara Tehsil And

[2025:RJ-JD:7112] (2 of 6) [CW-1194/2025]

District Bhilwara.

15. Bheru Lal Garg S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Opposite Sda School Shivaji Nagar, Dadidham Road, Kavakheda, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.

16. Sovani W/o Late Ram Prasad Bhand, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Bana Ka Kheda, Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara. Legal Representative Of Employee Ram Prasad Bhand.

17. Smt. Suki W/o Himata Ram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Meghwalo Ka Vas Dungarli, Dungli, District Pali. Legal Representative Of Employee Late Shri Himata Ram.

18. Ram Gopal S/o Khangar Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Kesarpura Sendara District Pali.

19. Nathu Singh S/o Pratap Singh Rao, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Main Bus Stand Narlai, Tehsil Desuri District Pali.

----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.), Bhilwara.

5. District Education Officer (Elementary Edu.), Bhilwara.

6. District Education Officer (Secondary Edu.), Pali.

7. District Education Officer (Elementary Edu.), Pali.

8. The Dy. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Udaipur.

9. The Dy. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur.

                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. K.P.Raj Singh Deora
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. N. K. Mehta





 [2025:RJ-JD:7112]                          (3 of 6)                           [CW-1194/2025]


                          JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                           Order

05/02/2025

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 Mahnot & Ors. (supra); we are of the opinion that the respondent - employee would stand regularized

[2025:RJ-JD:7112] (4 of 6) [CW-1194/2025]

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 services will be considered for the purpose of the same if there is a shortage in pensionary benefits.

[2025:RJ-JD:7112] (5 of 6) [CW-1194/2025]

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

be free to move appropriate representations in accordance with

law for the refund of the recovery.

[2025:RJ-JD:7112] (6 of 6) [CW-1194/2025]

4. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.