Satya Naryan Nagda vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10083) on 25 February, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:10083]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4841/2026

1.       Satya Naryan Nagda S/o Nathu Lal Ji, Aged About 59
         Years, R/o Village And Post Delwas, Tehsil Dungla, District
         Chittorgarh.
2.       Devi Lal Mogya S/o Omkar Ji, Aged About 56 Years, R/o
         Chand       Khera,       Post     Delwas,        Tehsil      Dungla,      District
         Chittorgarh.
3.       Shankar Lal Meena S/o Sawai Lal, Aged About 53 Years,
         R/o Village Chakatiya Bavji Guda, Tehsil Dungla, District
         Chittorgarh.
4.       Narendra Kumar Swarnkar S/o Bhagwati Lal, Aged About
         57 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar Kanod, Tehsil Vallabhnagar,
         District Udaipur.
5.       Ram Lal Khatik S/o Shri Lal Khatik, Aged About 58 Years,
         R/o Village And Post Chikarda, Tehsil Dungla, District
         Chittorgarh.
6.       Shyam Lal Dhing S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 56 Years, R/
         o Sadar Bazar, Dungla, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.
7.       Rekha Upadhyay W/o Gopal Upadhyay, Aged About 59
         Years, R/o 51 Delhi Gate, Udaipur, District Udaipur.
8.       Valu Ram Meghwal S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 58 Years,
         R/o Bhatoli Bagaryan, Tehsil Dungala, District Chittorgarh.
9.       Hemendra Singh Parihar S/o Omkar Singh, Aged About
         55 Years, R/o Prem Nagar, Dungla, Tehsil Dungla, District
         Chittorgarh.
10.      Hemraj Aheer S/o Dal Chand, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
         Nangpura (Morvan), Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.
11.      Khyali Shankar Bhatt S/o Daya Shankar, Aged About 58
         Years, R/o 218, Brahmpuri Idra, Tehsil Dungla, District
         Chittorgarh.
12.      Smt. Seema Purohit W/o Suresh Chandra Pareek, Aged
         About 53 Years, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Ward No. 19,
         Pratapnagar, Distt. Pratapgarh.
                                                                         ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of   Rajasthan,         Through        The       Secretary,     Rural
         Development             And         Panchayati           Raj     Department,

                           (Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:04:33 PM)
                          (Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:50:47 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:10083]                       (2 of 4)                         [CW-4841/2026]


         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3.       Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4.       District Education Officer (Secondary Edu.), Chittorgarh.
5.       District Education Officer (Elementary Edu.), Chittorgarh.
6.       District Education Officer (Secondary Edu.), Udaipur.
7.       District Education Officer (Elementary Edu.), Udaipur.
8.       The    Dy.     Director,        Pension      And      Pensioners     Welfare
         Department, Udaipur.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. K.P. Raj Deora



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

25/02/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:04:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10083] (3 of 4) [CW-4841/2026]

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 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).

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:04:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10083] (4 of 4) [CW-4841/2026]

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."

2. For the above-said 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 if any recovery is made by the

respondents pursuant to grant of ACP, the petitioners will be free

to move an appropriate representation in accordance with law for

the refund of the recovery.

4. The order instant 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 sought.