Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Narsing Dev Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28352) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28352]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11925/2025
1. Narsing Dev Yadav S/o Mula Ram Yadav, Aged About 53
Years, R/o Village Sundarpura, Post Ramjipura Kallan, Via
Rainwal, Dist. Jaipur, At Present Posting Mggs
Thikriyakhurd (Minda), Block Nawa, Dist. Didwana-
Kuchaman.
2. Subhash Chand Khadda S/o Prema Ram, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Khaddo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Nawa, Dist. Didwana-
Kuchaman, At Present Posting Gps Khaddo Ki Dhani,
Block Nawa, Dist. Didwana-Kuchaman.
3. Malu Ram Meena S/o Banna Ram Meena, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Tandi Ki Dhani Village Nolasiya Sambhupura,
Tehsil Nawa, Dist. Didwana-Kuchaman, At Present Posting
Gups Dediya Ka Bass, Minda, Block Nawa, Dist. Didwana-
Kuchaman.
4. Ganga Ram Kumawat S/o Hanuman Ram Kumawat, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o Dewatwalon Ki Dhani Manda
Bhimasingh, Tehsil Rainwal, Dist. Jaipur. At Present
Posting Mggs Thikriyakhurd, Block Nawa, Dist. Didwana-
Kuchaman.
5. Goma Ram Jat S/o Bhiwa Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Village Doongri Kalan, Tehsil Jobner, Dist. Jaipur, At
Present Gups Muvana, Block Nawa, Dist. Didwana-
Kuchaman.
6. Prameshwari Kumari D/o Mewa Ram, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Village Mundiyagarh, Tehsil Kishangarh
Rainwal, Dist. Jaipur, At Present Posting G.s.s Minda,
Block Nawa, Dist. Didwana-Kuchaman.
7. Mohani Devi D/o Ganesh Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Naya Bass Minda, Tehsil Nawa, Dist. Didwana-Kuchaman,
At Present Posting Gups Nayabass, Block Nawa Didwana-
Kuchaman.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:50:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28352] (2 of 5) [CW-11925/2025]
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Didwana Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
6. The District Education Officer (Secondary Education),
Didwana Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
7. The District Education Officer (Secondary Education),
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
02/07/2025
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
on04.08.2022, 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(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:50:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28352] (3 of 5) [CW-11925/2025]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
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(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:50:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28352] (4 of 5) [CW-11925/2025]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).
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.
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:50:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28352] (5 of 5) [CW-11925/2025]
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
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
41-Payal/-
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:50:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)