Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Harsh Lata Dwivedi Alias Harsha vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 5 March, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:10781]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23893/2025
Harsh Lata Dwivedi Alias Harsha W/o Rajnikant Dwivedi, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o Mukam Post Khargada, Tehsil Sagwara,
Dungarpur, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Education Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.
5. Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Dungarpur.
6. District Education (Secondary) Officer, Dungarpur.
7. District Educaiton (Elementary) Officer, Dungarpur.
8. Chief Block Education Officer, P.s. Galiyakot District
Dungarpur.
9. Panchayat Elementary Educaiton Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Chitari Block Galiyakot District Dungarpur.
10. The Dy. Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjeet Singh for
Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AAG.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
05/03/2026
1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this
petition is covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 04:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/03/2026 at 08:57:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10781] (2 of 4) [CW-23893/2025]
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Chandra Ram (D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.589/2025) decided on 07.07.2017.
2. Counsel for the respondents does not refute the above
submission.
3. In Chandra Ram’s (supra) while dealing with the issue as to
from which date benefit of selection grade and regularisation is to
be granted, 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(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 04:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/03/2026 at 08:57:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10781] (3 of 4) [CW-23893/2025]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.”
4. In view of the above ratio as laid down in Chandra Ram’s
case, the present writ petition is allowed on the same terms and
conditions as in Chandra Ram (supra).
5. 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,
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 04:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/03/2026 at 08:57:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10781] (4 of 4) [CW-23893/2025]
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
69-pradeep/-
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 04:33:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/03/2026 at 08:57:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)