Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kamal Ram Patidar vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 23 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:9500]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4388/2026
Kamal Ram Patidar S/o Shri Shankar Lal Ji, Aged About 65 Years,
R/o Kukad Mohalla, Kulmipura, Dhamotar, District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer (Hq), Secondary Education
Department, District Pratapgarh.
5. District Education Officer (Hq), Elementary Education
Department, District Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
23/02/2026
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(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:57:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:55:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9500] (2 of 3) [CW-4388/2026]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whether the benefit already granted can be withdrawn,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 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
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:57:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:55:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9500] (3 of 3) [CW-4388/2026]
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 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 petitioner 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.
5. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
296-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:57:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:55:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
