[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Askar Khan Pathan vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 18 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:31629]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13629/2025
1. Askar Khan Pathan S/o Fyaj Khan Pathan, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Lal Khan Ji Ka Khera Mandal, Dist. Bhilwara,
Raj.
2. Balwant Singh Chundawat S/o Megh Singh Chundawat,
Aged About 62 Years, R/o Vpo Kareda, Tehsil Kareda,
Dist. Bhilwara, Raj.
3. Narayan Singh Charan S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 63
Years, R/o Vpo Bhabhana, Tehsil Kareda, Dist. Bhilwara,
Raj.
4. Jaideep Kumar Saraswat S/o Kesari Mal Saraswat, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o Mundra Mohalla Mandal, Tehsil
Mandal, Dist. Bhilwara, Raj.
5. Satyandra Kumar Saraswat S/o Ramnath Joshi, Aged
About 62 Years, R/o Mohan Colony Mandal, Tehsil Mandal,
Dist. Bhilwara, Raj.
6. Mohammed Hakeem Rangraj S/o Shahabuddin Rangraj,
Aged About 65 Years, R/o Muslim Mohalla Ward No. 07
Bagor, Dist. Bhilwara, Raj.
7. Shiv Kumar Tiwari S/o Ram Chandra Tiwari, Aged About
63 Years, R/o Nai Nagari Mandal, Dist. Bhilwara, Raj.
8. Altaf Hussain Sekh S/o Majeed Mohammad Sekh, Aged
About 63 Years, R/o Muslim Mohalla, Bagor, Dist.
Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. Joint Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer.
5. Chief District Education Officer, Bhilwara.
6. District Education Officer, Secondary, Bhilwara.
7. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:57:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31629] (2 of 5) [CW-13629/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat.
Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
18/07/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi and Surendra
Mahnot & Ors. (supra); we are of the opinion that the
respondent -employee would stand regularized from(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:57:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31629] (3 of 5) [CW-13629/2025]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/or27 will be considered their ad-hoc service
will not be considered for the purpose of benefit of 9,
18 and/or 27years. But if benefit has already been
granted for all the three scales; the same shall not be
withdrawn and norecovery 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
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:57:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31629] (4 of 5) [CW-13629/2025]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).
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 self same 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 any recovery made by the respondents
in pursuance of the grant of ACP, the petitioner will be free to
move an appropriate representations in accordance with law for
the refund of the recovery.
4. 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
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:57:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31629] (5 of 5) [CW-13629/2025]
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief sought.
5. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
240-Nitin/-
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:57:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link