Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarayan Pareek vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26039) on 27 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:26039]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19042/2024
Satyanarayan Pareek S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Pareek, Aged About
59 Years, Resident Of Village Amesar, Tehsil Asind, District
Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Department Of Elementary Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nimba Ram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Sodha for
Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AGC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
27/05/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy rests covered by the judgment passed by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramdhan Jat & Ors. Vs. The
State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.8908/2013 (decided on 08.10.2024) while relying upon the
Division Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur in State of
Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Chandra Ram; D.B. Special Appeal
Writ No.589/2015 (decided on 07.07.2017). The Division Bench
while replying to the questions as framed, observed 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
[2025:RJ-JD:26039] (2 of 3) [CW-19042/2024]
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However, the benefits shall not be withdrawn but in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/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
[2025:RJ-JD:26039] (3 of 3) [CW-19042/2024]
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 int he 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."
2. Learned counsel for the respondents admits that the issue
would be governed the ratio laid down in Chandra Ram's case
(supra).
3. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is
disposed of on the same terms as in the case of Chandra Ram
(supra).
4. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
265-Devanshi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
