Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Chandra Shreemali vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:33857) on 9 October, 2023
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:33857] (1 of 5) [CW-13094/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13094/2023
1. Suresh Chandra Shreemali S/o Shiv Shankar, Aged About
61 Years, R/o Khelwara, Kumbhalgarh District-
Rajsamand.
2. Ahmed Ali Shyad S/o Abbas Ali, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Khelwara, Kumbhalgarh District- Rajsamand.
3. Chaggan Lal Ameta S/o Panna Lal, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Khelwara, Kumbhalgarh District- Rajsamand.
4. Savaram Meghwal S/o Hema Ram, Aged About 66 Years,
R/o Village And Post- Kanuja, Kumbhalgarh District-
Rajsamand.
5. Khoom Singh Kupawat S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Solankiyo Ka Guda, Kumbhalgarh District-
Rajsamand.
6. Mangilal Nagarchi S/o Ramlal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Village Bara Post- Antri, Kumbhalgarh District-
Rajsamand.
7. Mahipal Singh Jhala S/o Mohan Singh Jhala, Aged About
67 Years, R/o Kumbhalgarh District- Rajsamand.
8. Bhanwar Lal Paliwal S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 59 Years,
R/o Village Bhaghdola Tehsil- Rajsamand District-
Rajsamand.
9. Laxmi Narayan Paliwal S/o Radhakrishna, Aged About 56
Years, R/o Gayatri Niwas Dhoinda Kankroli District-
Rajsamand.
10. Banshi Lal Bhambhi S/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 58 Years,
R/o Village And Post Raipur, District Bhilwara.
11. Smt. Asha Upadhay W/o Shree Vrajhkant, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand.
12. Chaitanya Prakash Upadhya S/o Shree Vanshi Dhar
Upadhay, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Khamnor, Nathdwara
District- Rajsamand.
13. Mohan Lal Balai S/o Roop Lal Balai, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o Saanpo Ka Kheda, Daya Kankroli District- Rajsamand.
14. Roop Lal Balai S/o Khemji Balai, Aged About 59 Years,
R/o Saanpo Ka Kheda, Daya Kankroli District- Rajsamand.
15. Raaju Lal Bhaand S/o Bansi Lal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Khamnor, District- Rajsamand.
16. Magan Lal Balai S/o Udai Lal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
Karai, District- Rajsamand.
17. Gopal Prakash Paliwal S/o Govardhan Lal, Aged About 58
Years, R/o District- Kumbhalgarh, Rajsamand.
18. Lalu Ram Meghwal S/o Girdhari Lal, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o Kumbhalgarh, District- Rajsamand.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:22:46 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:33857] (2 of 5) [CW-13094/2023]
19. Bhanwar Lal Jathiya S/o Bheru Lal, Aged About 56 Years,
R/o Salor, Khamnor District- Rajsamand.
20. Mohan Lal Lohar S/o Khemraj, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Danvas Khamnor, District- Rajsamand.
21. Moti Lal Mali S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Khamnor, District- Rajsamand.
22. Dinesh Chandra Vyas S/o Jagdish Chandra Vyas, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o Near Agrasen Manglik Bhawan,
Azadnagar, District- Bhilwara.
23. Bhanwar Singh Ranawat S/o Jorawar Singh Ranawat,
Aged About 60 Years, R/o Abakhedi, Bhilwara, District-
Bhilwara.
24. Mahipal Singh Jhala S/o Mohan Singh Jhala, Aged About
67 Years, R/o Oladar, Post- Majera, Tehasil-Kumbhalgarh,
Distrcit- Rajsamand.
25. Bhawar Lal Paliwal S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 59 Years,
R/o Bagdola, Via Bhana, District- Rajsamand.
26. Laxmi Narayan Paliwal S/o Radhey Krishnan, Aged About
56 Years, R/o Near Bus Stand Gayatri Niwas, Dhoinda, Via
Kakroli, District- Rajsamand.
27. Usha Shrimali W/o Harish Durgawat, Aged About 56
Years, R/o 64 Manglam Complex, Aamli Magri, Post-
Sobagpura, District-Udaipur.
28. Bansli Lal Bhambhi Sister/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Raipur, District- Bhilwara.
29. Smt. Aasha Upadhyay W/o Braj Lal Upadhyay, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o Badi Gali Nathdwara District
Rajsamand.
30. Chetanay Prakash Upadhyay S/o Bansidhar Upadhyay,
Aged About 59 Years, R/o Khamnor District- Rajsamand.
31. Parmeshwar Tiwari S/o Durga Lal, Aged About 59 Years,
R/o Village Post- Pander , District- Bhilwara.
32. Lahru Lal Jat S/o Uday Ram Jat, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o Village- Payara, Rampuriya Tehsil - Baneda, District-
Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer (Secondary Edu.), Rajsamand.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary Edu.), Rajsamand.
6. District Education Officer (Secondary Edu.), Bhilwara.
7. District Education Officer (Elementary Edu.), Bhilwara.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:22:46 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:33857] (3 of 5) [CW-13094/2023]
8. The Dy. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.P.S. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC assisted
by Mr. Vishal Jangid
Mr. Ravi Panwar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 09/10/2023 Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement 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.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:22:46 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:33857] (4 of 5) [CW-13094/2023] (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 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:22:46 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:33857] (5 of 5) [CW-13094/2023] 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."
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).
It is made clear that any recovery made by the respondents in pursuance of the grant of ACP, the petitioners will be free to move an appropriate representations in accordance with law for the refund of the recovery.
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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 280-/vivek/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:22:46 AM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)