Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gayatri Singhal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:49583]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22483/2025
1. Gayatri Singhal W/o Omprakash Singhal, Aged About 53
Years, Near Cooperative Bank, Ward No. 3, Atru, Tehsil
Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. Chandra Kala Joshi W/o Premshankar Sharma, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o Gadiya Mandir Mohalla Hat Chok
Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education
Secretary, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Primary Education), Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Baran.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/11/2025
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following
reliefs:-
"(i). Issue an appropriate writ order or dierction
in the nature thereof theregy the respondents by
directed to count the service of petitioners from
the initial yeas of appointment i.e. 2008 and 2009
respectively for the purpose of service benefit like
seniority, selection grade, benefit on completion
of 9, 18, 27 years of service and all practical
purposes.
(ii). Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in
the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents
to release all service benefit to the petitioners by
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:47:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 09:35:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49583] (2 of 3) [CW-22483/2025]
counting and taking into consideration the first
date of appointment and release all payment and
arrears to the petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that
the controversy involved in the present writ petition has been
settled by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur vide its
judgment dated 07.07.2017 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No.589/2015 : State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Chandra Ram and
other connected matters.
3. In the case of Chandra Ram (supra), the Division Bench in
relation to the controversy involved has held thus :
"The Controversy is covered by Full Bench decision
passed on 03.07.2017 wherein, it has been held
as under:
..........
...........
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, 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
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:47:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49583] (3 of 3) [CW-22483/2025]
considered for the purpose of the same if there is
a shortage in pensionary benefits.
In view of the above, all the appeals deserve to be
allowed and the same are allowed. Stay
applications are disposed of."
4. The present writ petition is disposed of in above noted terms of
the judgment in the case of Chandra Ram (supra).
5. The respondents are directed to do the needful within a period
of two months of receiving the certified copy of the order instant,
which the petitioner would place.
6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. 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.
(FARJAND ALI),J
344-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:47:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
