Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit ... on 27 February, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:11421]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 162/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, The Secretary, Devasthan
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Government
Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
3. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department,
Hanumangarh Division. Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit S/o Late Shri Gangaram, Resident Of
Gali No. 2. Rampura Basti, Behind Chahta Factory Kanasar Road,
Lalgarh, Bikaner.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Kamini Joshi
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
27/02/2025
1. The present review petition has been preferred against the
order dated 05.01.2022 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.12723/2017 (Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.). The writ petition was decided by this Court on
a submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner which
was not refuted by learned counsel for the respondent, to the
effect that the issue in question is covered by the judgment
passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3483/2006; Smt.
[2025:RJ-JD:11421] (2 of 4) [WRW-162/2022]
Kanchan Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on
05.01.2000).
2. The review petition has been preferred with the ground that
because of the Devasthan Nidhi Karamchari (Revised Pay and
Allowances) Rules, 2010 (for short 'the Rules of 2010') having
been framed, the services of the respondent could only be
regularised with effect from the date when the said Rules of 2010
came into effect.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the
respondent could not be governed by the ratio laid down in
Kanchan Devi's case (supra) as his date of appointment i.e.
30.03.1996 was beyond the period specified for regularization by
Kanchan Devi's case (supra).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that even
otherwise the respondent had not been granted benefit of
regularization w.e.f. 12.10.1992 vide the order impugned but was
granted the said benefit w.e.f. 30.03.1996, hence, the order
impugned does not deserve any interference.
5. Heard the counsels.
6. In Kanchan Devi's case (supra) it was held that all the
employees of the Devasthan Department appointed between the
period from 01.01.1985 to 31.03.1990 were to be regularised
w.e.f. 12.10.1992, i.e., the date when the amendment/notification
qua the Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff Rules,
1957 (for short 'the Rules of 1957') came into effect. It was
specifically held that although the employees would not be entitled
[2025:RJ-JD:11421] (3 of 4) [WRW-162/2022]
for regularisation with effect from the date of entry in the services
but then definitely are entitled w.e.f. 12.10.1992.
7. In the present matter, the respondent who was appointed on
30.03.1996, definitely does not fall within the period governed by
Kanchan Devi's case (supra) and hence, would not be governed
by the ratio as laid down in the said case. But then, the argument
of learned counsel for the State that respondent would be
governed by the Rules of 2010 is also incomprehensible as it
cannot be presumed that the Rules of 1957 and notifications
published in terms of the said Rules would not apply on the
employees who had joined between the period ranging from
12.10.1992 to the date when the Rules of 2010 came into effect.
Therefore, in the present matter, the respondent who was
appointed on 30.03.1996 would definitely be governed by the
Rules of 1957 and notifications published thereunder.
8. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the
opinion that no interference is required in the order impugned
dated 05.01.2022 to the extent that the respondent would not be
governed by the Rules of 2010. However, the order impugned to
the extent of the finding that respondent would be governed by
the ratio as laid down in Kanchan Devi's case (supra) is liable to
be set aside. The present review petition is hence, partly
allowed.
9. It is declared that the respondent would be governed by the
Rules of 1957 and is entitled to be regularised under Rule 25 (10)
of the Rules of 1957.
[2025:RJ-JD:11421] (4 of 4) [WRW-162/2022]
10. The petitioners are directed to consider and decide the case
of the respondent for regularization within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the present order.
11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
46-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
