Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hardil Aziz Queshi vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:43596-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8313/2025
Hardil Aziz Queshi S/o Shri Mohammed Hussain, Aged About 50
Years, R/o 203 Jain Mandir Kshetra, Hadmanta Pole, Ward No. 9,
Dungarpur, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director Cum Joint Secretary, Department Of Local Self
Government, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Deputy Director, Department Of Local Self Government,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Deputy Director Regional, Local Self Government Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
5. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VLS Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
03/10/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment rendered by this Court in Narendra Singh Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
11058/2023) along with other connected matters decided on
04.12.2024.
2. In the case of Narendra Singh (supra), this Court passed the
following order:-
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 10:46:08 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43596-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-8313/2025]
"7. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, given that
once it is undisputed that the petitioners had completed 10
years of continuous services on or before 10.04.2006, and
considering the uniform notification by the State
Government amending Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, the
provisions are squarely applicable to the present
petitioners, making them entitled to be regularized/benefit
from the decision introduced by the respondents effective
from27.01.2011. Any lethargic decision making on the part
of the respondents cannot deprive the petitioners of the
uniform decision taken by the respondents themselves
while keeping in tandem the facts that they had completed
10 years of continuous service and also the Rule 10 of the
Rules of 1964, which has been amended by the
Government.
8. The precedent judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the
present case, because those judgments deal with regular
regularization, disputes regarding 10 years of service, and
retrospectivity whereas in the present case, there is no
such dispute involved, because the respondents took a
considered decision to amend the law, particularly Rule 10
of the Rules 1964, by introducing the notification dated
27.01.2011. This notification was intended to provide
regularization benefits to persons in continuous service
who had completed 10 years of service before
10.04.2006,without intervention of the Court.
9. Consequently, there is no question of retrospectivity,
as the State itself has taken a considered view to
regularize such persons by amending the statute. Once a
statute has been amended for the welfare of employees,
particularly Safai karmis and LDC (to which the present
petitions relate), and such amendment has been
implemented with the petitioners conforming to the
parameters laid down in the amendment of Rule 10 of the
Rules of1964, a lethargic consideration cannot become
grounds for denying the person benefits of regularization
from the date the decision was made by the State itself.
10. This Court is in agreement with the respondents that
the petitioners did not provide any ground in the
submission today to make out a case for any intervention
in the statute of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, which has
been sought in their prayers. However, this Court is of the
considered opinion that once there is a legislation
Notification dated 27.01.2011, whereby a uniform decision
has been taken amending Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964that
all those persons who have completed 10 years of
continuous service, without intervention of the Court, upto
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 10:46:08 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43596-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-8313/2025]
10.04.2006, and such factual matrix is not disputed by the
respondents, then the benefit ought to accrue to such
persons w.e.f. 16.05.2011 /27.01.2011. The prayer for
granting regularization from 2006onwards cannot be
granted to the petitioners, because in 2006, no Policy,
Rules, or Statute existed that could have accrued to the
petitioners regarding right to regularization.
11. Thus, the writ petitions is accordingly allowed to that
extent and respondents are directed to consider the case of
the petitioners for regularization and give all necessary
notional benefits of regularization effective from the date of
the State's Notification dated 16.05.2011 / 27.01.2011,
when the petitioners had completed 10 years of continuous
service without intervention of the Court, before
10.04.2006. Accordingly, the notional benefits shall be
given to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.05.2011 / 27.01.2011 for
regular services.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of
accordingly."
3. In view of such submission being made, the present writ
petition stands allowed on the same terms.
4. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
8-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 10:46:08 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
