Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manjula Pandya vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:21349]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8034/2025

Manjula Pandya W/o Dwarikesh Pandya, Aged About 66 Years,
R/o Ward No. 06, Aara Machine Ke Samne, Cheentri District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The    State      Of     Rajasthan,          Through       Its   Secretary,
         Department Of Education Government Of Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2.       Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3.       Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4.       The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
5.       Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Dungarpur.
6.       District Elementary Education Officer, Dungarpur.
7.       Chief Block Education Officer, P.s. Galiyakot District
         Dungarpur.
8.       Panchayat Elementary Education Offecer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
         School, Nadiya Block Galiyakot District Dungarpur.
9.       The    Dy.   Director,        Pension        And      Pensioners   Welfare
         Department, Udaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Pritam Joshi.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy. G.C.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

05/05/2025

1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21349] (2 of 4) [CW-8034/2025]

Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected matter, decided on

04.08.2022, 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date the benefit of selection grade and regularisation has to be granted and whether the benefit already granted can be withdrawn, were under consideration in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors.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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:21349] (3 of 4) [CW-8034/2025]

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 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 allowed on the same terms and conditions.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of."

[2025:RJ-JD:21349] (4 of 4) [CW-8034/2025]

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 representation in accordance with law for the

refund of the recovery.

4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made