Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balram Balai vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:29355]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12485/2025
1. Balram Balai S/o Shri Mogji Balai, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o Ward No. 7, Vpo Sadar Bazar, Bunker Mohalla,
Khamera, District Banswara (Raj.).
2. Jaswant Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Garvar Singh Chauhan,
Aged About 63 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Udaji Ka Gada,
District Banswara (Raj.).
3. Ramesh Chandra Ninama S/o Shri Rakama Ninama, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Village Topiya Dungari,
Post Kherwa, Tehsil Ghatol Kunda, District Banswara
(Raj.).
4. Lalsingh Chauhan S/o Shri Laxman Singh Chauhan, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o Prithviraj Nagar, Janameri, District
Banswara (Raj.).
5. Gangaram Kalal S/o Shri Hurji Kalal, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Mu.p.-Dunger, Tehsil Ghatol, Doongar, Dungra,
District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary
To The Government, Department Of Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Raj.).
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Raj.).
4. The District Education Officer (Hq), Elementary Education,
Banswara (Raj.).
5. The District Education Officer (Hq), Secondary Education,
Banswara (Raj.).
6. The District Education Officer (Hq), Elementary Education,
Pratapgarh (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:48:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29355] (2 of 4) [CW-12485/2025]
7. The District Education Officer (Hq), Secondary Education,
Pratapgarh (Raj.).
8. The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal Jat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
08/07/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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
on04.08.2022, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:29355] (3 of 4) [CW-12485/2025]
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 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/or27
will be considered their ad-hoc service will not be considered
for the purpose of benefit of 9, 18 and/or 27years. But if
benefit has already been granted for all the three scales;
the same shall not be withdrawn and norecovery 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
[2025:RJ-JD:29355] (4 of 4) [CW-12485/2025]
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 any recovery made by the respondents
in pursuance of the grant of ACP, the petitioner will be free to
move an appropriate representations in accordance with law for
the refund of the recovery.
4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief sought.
5. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
9-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
