Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramdayal Kumawat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25686) on 26 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:25686]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10946/2025
1. Ramdayal Kumawat S/o Shri Roopnarayan Kumawat,
Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village And Post Asalpur, Via
Jobner, District Jaipur.
2. Jagdish Prasad S/o Sujaram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Village And Post Gangatikalan, Via Maujamabad, District
Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jaipur.
5. Director, Pension And Pensionary Welfare Department,
Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
26/05/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 on
04.08.2022, which reads as under:-
[2025:RJ-JD:25686] (2 of 4) [CW-10946/2025]
"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granted can be withdrawn, were under consideration in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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:25686] (3 of 4) [CW-10946/2025]
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:25686] (4 of 4) [CW-10946/2025]
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 petitioners 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
petitioners would be entitled to the relief sought.
5. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
302-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
