Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghanshyam Pareek And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 26 November, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:51332]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14276/2016
Keshar Mal Bhambhu S/o Sh. Pabu Ram Bhambhu, R/o Village
And Post Bikasar Tehsil Nokha Dist. Bikaner
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Director Elementary
Education, Bikaner
2. District Education Officer, Elementary Education Bikaner
3. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Court Jodhpur Through
Its Registrar
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2869/2017
Bajrang Lal Sharma S/o Shri Leeladhar Sharma, B/c Sharma, R/
o Vpo Ward No. 24, Nohar, District Hanumangarh Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary,
Department Of Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Zone,
Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer Secondary Education,
District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3365/2017
1. Ghanshyam Pareek S/o Shri Ratiram Pareek, B/c Pareek,
R/o Bhanguli, Post Meghana, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh Raj.
2. Mahendra Singh Saharan S/o Shri Narayan Singh
Saharan, R/o Vpo Barwali, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh Raj.
3. Kedar Nath Golyan S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, R/o Vpo
Jasana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 07:26:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/11/2025 at 07:43:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51332] (2 of 4) [CW-14276/2016]
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary,
Department Of Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Zone,
Bikaner
3. The District Education Officer Secondary Education,
District Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanraj Khichi for
Mr. Pramendra Bohra
Mr. Deepak Pareek for
Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy. GC with
Mr. Bhupesh Charan
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
26/11/2025
1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in
these petitions is covered by Division Bench judgment of this
Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Chandra Ram (D.B.
Special Appeal Writ No.589/2025) decided on 07.07.2017.
2. Counsel for the respondents does not refute the above
submission.
3. In Chandra Ram's (supra) while dealing with the issue as to
from which date benefit of selection grade and regularisation is to
be granted, 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
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 07:26:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51332] (3 of 4) [CW-14276/2016]
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 the
purpose of the same if there is
a shortage in pensionary benefits.
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 07:26:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51332] (4 of 4) [CW-14276/2016]
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."
4. In view of the above ratio as laid down in Chandra Ram's
case, the present writ petitions are allowed on the same terms
and conditions as in Chandra Ram (supra).
5. 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.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
146-148 Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 07:26:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
