Khemaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:18730) on 21 April, 2026

    0
    31
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

    Khemaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:18730) on 21 April, 2026

    Author: Anand Sharma

    Bench: Anand Sharma

    [2026:RJ-JD:18730]
    
          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5491/2026
    
    Khemaram S/o Shri Sitaram Jat, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
    Village Khodva, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
    1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
             Of Education (School), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
    2.       The    Director,   Department           Of     Elementary     Education,
             Rajasthan Directorate, Bikaner.
    3.       The    Director,    Department           Of     Secondary     Education,
             Rajasthan Directorate, Bikaner.
    4.       District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Nagaur.
    5.       District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Nagaur.
    6.       Panchayat Samiti, Mundwa, Through Development Officer,
             District Nagaur.
    7.       Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
                                                                      ----Respondents
    
    
    For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Raghvendra Mundel
    For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C.
                                     Mr. Piyush Bhandari for
                                     Mr. Parveen Khandelwal, AAG
                                     Mr. Bhupesh Charan
    
    
    
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

    Order

    21/04/2026

    SPONSORED

    1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for

    direction against the respondents to grant benefit of selection

    grade to the petitioner on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of

    service by computing his service from the date of initial

    appointment.

    (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:53:39 AM)
    (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 08:37:54 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JD:18730] (2 of 5) [CW-5491/2026]

    2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the

    post of Teacher Grade-III vide order dated 18.07.1984 issued by

    the Panchayat Samiti, Mundawa, District Nagaur on temporary

    basis for a period of six months or till availability of regularly

    selected candidates.

    3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter

    the order dated 09.05.1988 was issued by the Development

    Officer, whereby services of the petitioner were confirmed w.e.f.

    19.07.1986.

    4. It is submitted that in view of circular dated 25.01.1992

    issued by the Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan,

    revised from time to time, benefit of first grade selection on

    completion of nine years service was granted to the petitioner

    whereby length of service of nine years was taken into

    consideration w.e.f. date of initial appointment i.e. 19.07.1986,

    thereafter also further benefits of selection grade of ACP were

    granted to the petitioner by calculating his length of service from

    the date of initial appointment.

    5. Grievance of the petitioner is that after retirement of the

    petitioner, the respondents, in quite arbitrary and illegal manner,

    revised the benefits of selection grades earlier granted to the

    petitioner by computing his services from subsequent date i.e. the

    date of regularization by the standing Committee.

    6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment

    of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan

    & Ors. vs. Chandra Ram (D.B. Special Appeal Writ

    No.589/2015 decided on 07.07.2017 which has been considered

    and followed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. CWP

    (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:53:39 AM)
    (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 08:37:54 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JD:18730] (3 of 5) [CW-5491/2026]

    No.13089/2023 Khem Raj Nagda & Ors. vs. State of

    Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 09.10.2023.

    7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this

    case of the petitioner is similar to the case of State of Rajasthan

    & Ors. vs. Chandra Ram (supra).

    8. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ

    petition and submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

    State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (2009) 12

    SCC 49 has held that for the purpose of selection grade services

    of an employee are to be considered from the date of

    regularization and in the instant case, the date of regularization of

    the petitioner is subsequent, therefore, for the purpose of grant of

    selection grade, services of the petitioner cannot be taken into

    consideration from the date of initial appointment.

    9. However, learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed

    that similar controversy has been decided by Division Bench of

    this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Chandra

    Ram (supra) where following directions have been issued:-

    “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

    (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:53:39 AM)
    (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 08:37:54 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JD:18730] (4 of 5) [CW-5491/2026]

    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 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.”

    10. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, this

    Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the writ petition in

    the light of the judgment of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs.

    Chandra Ram (supra). The respondents shall examine the case

    of the petitioner in light of the above decision and in case the

    petitioner is entitled as per the above judgment for getting

    (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:53:39 AM)
    (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 08:37:54 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JD:18730] (5 of 5) [CW-5491/2026]

    benefits of selection grade from the date of initial appointment,

    the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner shall be

    refunded back to the petitioner.

    11. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to submit a

    representation for claiming other benefits connected with grant of

    selection scale.

    12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

    (ANAND SHARMA),J
    Neeru/54

    (Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:53:39 AM)
    (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 08:37:54 PM)

    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here