Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakriti Vyas vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:49559]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22120/2025
Prakriti Vyas W/o Akhilesh Vyas, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Mukam Post Jasela, Tehsil Galiyakot, Dungarpur 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 Education (Secondary) Officer, Dungarpur.
7. District Education (Elementary) Officer, Dungarpur.
8. Chief Block Education Officer, P.s. Galiyakot District
Dungarpur.
9. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Jasela Block Galiyakot District Dungarpur.
10. The Dy. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/11/2025
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the subject matter in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court on 25.07.2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 01:27:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49559] (2 of 4) [CW-22120/2025]
No.19702/2022 titled as 'Jabbar Singh & Ors. Vs State
ofRajasthan & Ors.' along with connected writ petition.
2. The aforesaid order dated 25.07.2023 reads as follows:
"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
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withdrawn, were under consideration in the matter of State of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
Chaturvediand 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
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 01:27:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49559] (3 of 4) [CW-22120/2025]
new law declared by the Supreme Court i.e. period will be
considered from the date of regularization. When the future
benefit of 9, 18and/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. SurendraMohnot & 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.
"For the self same reasons, the present writ petitions are
disposed of in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the
case of Smt. Saroj BalaBhatt (supra).
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 01:27:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49559] (4 of 4) [CW-22120/2025]
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."
3. The case of the petitioner shall also be considered in the light
of the aforesaid order.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in same
terms as passed in the case of Jabbar Singh (supra).
5. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
160-divya/-
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 01:27:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
