Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan State vs Dinesh Rawat (2025:Rj-Jd:4478) on 23 January, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:4478]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 146/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, The Secretary, Devesthan
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Devesthan Department, Rajasthan,
Udaipur.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan Department
Rishabhdev, District Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Lal Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Kalyan Singh, Village Post Degai,
Tehsil And District Pali At Present Residing At Rishabhdev, District
Udaipur.
----Respondent
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 151/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Devesthan
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Devesthan Department, Rajasthan,
Udaipur.
3. Additional Commissioner, Devesthan Department,
Rajasthan, Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Bhupendra Singh Parihar S/o Shri Ram Singh Parihar, 3 K 19,
Prabhat Nagar, Hiran Magri Sector No. 5, Udaipur.
----Respondent
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 163/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan State, The Secretary Devasthan
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Devasthan Deparment, Government
Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.
3. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Ratan
Bihari Park, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:30:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4478] (2 of 4) [WRW-146/2022]
Versus
Dinesh Rawat S/o Suraj Mal Rawat, R/o Behind The Uit, Rawton
Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, aag
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit
Ms. Kamini Joshi
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
23/01/2025
1. The present review petitions have been preferred against
the orders dated 21.01.2022, 27.01.2022 and 05.01.2022
respectively passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
Nos.10447/2017, 8182/2017 and 12721/2017. The writ
petitions were decided by this Court on a submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioners 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. Kanchan Devi Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 05.01.2000).
2. The review petitions have been preferred only 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 respondents could only be
regularised with effect from the date when the said Rules of 2010
came into effect.
3. The arguments as raised by the learned counsel seem to be
fallacious for the reasons; firstly, the said argument had already
[2025:RJ-JD:4478] (3 of 4) [WRW-146/2022]
been raised in the writ petitions and the same had already been
dealt with by this Court. It cannot again be permitted to be raised
by way of a review. Secondly, learned counsel could not point
any distinction in the present matter as to why the ratio as laid
down in Kanchan Devi's case (supra) would not be applicable to
the present matters wherein 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.
4. In Kanchan Devi's case, it was specifically held that
although the employees would not be entitled for regularisation
with effect from the date of entry in the services but then
definitely are entitled w.e.f. 12.10.1992, i.e., the date from which,
the amendment in Rules of 1957 was effected upon.
5. In the present matters, the respondents who were appointed
on 04.09.1981, 18.05.1989 and 02.11.1983 respectively, definitely
fall within the period governed by the notification dated 12.10.1992
and hence, would definitely be governed by the ratio as laid down
in Kanchan Devi's case (supra).
6. The review petitions cannot be entertained also for the reason
that a specific submission of the issue being covered by Kanchan
Devi's judgment was made by counsel for the petitioners therein
and the same was not refuted/disputed by counsel for the
respondent Department. The Department cannot now, be permitted
to take a total reverse stand and plead that Kanchan Devi's
judgment would not apply to the issue in question.
[2025:RJ-JD:4478] (4 of 4) [WRW-146/2022]
7. This Court does not find any ground to distinguish the present
matter from Kanchan Devi's case (supra) and hence, does not
find any ground to entertain the present review petitions and
hence, the same are dismissed.
8. Stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
354-356/praveen/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
