Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Virendra Singh S/O Sh. Fateh Singh Ji … on 17 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 575/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Devasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Department Of Devasthan,
Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Department Of Devasthan,
Vrindavan, U.p.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Virendra Singh S/o Sh. Fateh Singh Ji, Resident Of Jaipur
Mandir, Mathura Road, Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh (Since
Deceased) through Legal Representatives:-
1/1. Kusum W/o Late Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 58
Years, Resident Of Jaipur Mandir, Madhovilas, Vrindawan
Mathura, Utter Pradesh.
1/2. Ravindra Pal Singh S/o Late Shri Virendra Singh, Aged
About 38 Years, Resident Of Jaipur Mandir, Madhovilas,
Vrindawan Mathura, Utter Pradesh.
1/3. Lokendra Singh S/o Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of Jaipur Mandir, Madhovilas, Vrindawan
Mathura, Utter Pradesh.
1/4. Vandana W/o Sanjay Kumar Rana, Resident Of Kanugoyo
Mohalla, Palwal, Palwal Rural Part- 73, Palwal- 121102.
1/5. Manvendra Singh S/o Late Shri Virendra Singh, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Jaipur Mandir, Madhovilas,
Vrindawan Mathura, Utter Pradesh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma for Mr.
Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Pareek, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Abhay Purohit, Mr. Pulkit
Pareek, Mr. Hem Chand Sharma, Mr.
Mukesh Kumar Gunjan & Ms. Muskan
Soni
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-575/2024]
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Judgment
17/04/2026
1. Instant DB Special Appeal (writ) is preferred by the
appellants non-petitioners aggrieved from order dated
30.05.2024 in review petition no. 51/2023 and order dated
31.03.2022 in writ petition no. 7783/2017 Virendra Singh
Vs. State and Ors. passed by learned Single Judge.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits
that respondent writ petitioner Virendra Singh (since
deceased) was appointed purely on stop-gap arrangement as
Nidhi Prabandhak. He further submitted that the respondent
has filed a writ petition with contention that his services be
regularized from 01.12.1994 and the order dated
24.02.2016 passed by the appellants, pursuant to order
dated 11.03.2014 in writ petition no. 20719/2013, be
declared as illegal. He further submitted that while
considering the case of respondent writ petitioner, a Co-
ordinate Bench has placed reliance upon judgment in case of
Shyamlal versus State of Rajasthan and Ors., SB civil
writ petition no. 3644/2005 decided at Principal Seat
Jodhpur on 15.05.2017 on the basis of judgment in case of
Smt. Kanchan Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil
writ petition no. 473/1993 decided on 05.01.2000. He
further submitted that the case of respondent writ petitioner
is having no similarity either with Kanchan Devi (supra)
and Shyamlal (supra) or with learned Single Judge has
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-575/2024]
committed serious error while allowing the writ petition on
the basis of aforementioned judgments.
3. Learned counsel has further submitted that they have filed a
review petition with comparative tables to show that the
cases are not similar and there are factual differences, but
learned Single Judge has also rejected the review petition
without considering the facts mentioned by the appellants.
He further referred order dated 24.01.2025 in S.B. Review
petition no. 162/2022, “State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra
Singh Rajpurohit” in writ petition no. 12723/2017,
“Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and
Ors., decided on 05.01.2022 by a Co-ordinate Bench at
Principal Seat Jodhpur and submitted that facts as narrated
in Kanchan Devi (supra) were not specifically applicable in
the facts and circumstances of the case and the order
passed by learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside.
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of legal heirs of deceased
respondent and submitted that respondent writ petitioner
has already expired and now his legal heirs are defending
the case. He further submitted that the appointment order
and extension order are placed on record which clearly
demonstrate that writ petitioner Virendra Singh (since dead)
was appointed by Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan and
not by any temple board. He also submitted that terms of
appointment also indicate that it was with pay and
allowances. He further submitted that the judgment in case
of Kanchan Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, SB
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-575/2024]
civil writ petition no. 473/1992 decided by a coordinate
bench of this Hon’ble Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur was
upheld by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on
03.12.2015. He further submitted that the State of
Rajasthan has preferred SLP (Civil) ……. CC no. 11532/2016
before Hon’ble Supreme Court and same was dismissed on
12.07.2016. He further submitted that the judgment in case
of Kanchan Devi (supra) was relied while disposing writ
petition of Shyam Lal Sharma (supra) on 15.05.2007. He
also submitted that the issue was considered by learned
Single Judge while deciding the writ petition and same was
also considered while dismissing the review petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent. Perused the
material placed on record and also considered the judgment
as referred by learned counsel for parties.
6. Admittedly respondent-writ petitioner Virendra Singh was
appointed as Nidhi Prabandhak against vacant post on
03.12.1994 on recommendation of Assistant Commissioner,
Devasthan Department, Vrindavan. The appointment order is
issued by the Commissioner, Devasthan, Rajasthan and the
services of Virendra Singh were extended from time to time.
The respondent has filed a writ petition no. 20719/2013
before this Court which was disposed of on 11.03.2014 with
direction to the Commissioner, Devasthan to examine the
case of petitioner in light of judgment in case of Smt.
Kanchan Devi (supra). Pursuant to order dated
11.03.2014 in said writ petition, an order dated 24.02.2016
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-575/2024]
was issued that the respondent Virendra Singh is entitled for
benefits under the Devasthan Nidhi Karamchari Niyam 2010.
The respondent has filed a writ petition which was disposed
by learned Single Judge on 31.03.2022 on the basis of
judgment in case of Shyam Lal Vs. State (supra).
Aggrieved appellants have filed a review petition which was
also dismissed on 30.05.2024.
7. In case of Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of
Rajasthan (supra), initially the writ petition was allowed
on 05.01.2022 on the basis of judgment in case of Smt.
Kanchan Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), but an
appeal preferred by State of Rajasthan and Ors., an
opportunity was granted to file review application and appeal
was dismissed as withdrawn. In a review petition filed by the
State of Rajasthan and others, the order was modified to the
extent that respondent would be governed by the rules of
1957 and entitled for regularization under Rule 25(10) of the
rules of 1957.
8. In the instant case, learned counsel has referred
comparative chart submitted as Annexure-2 in review
petition and we have considered the difference between case
of Virendra Singh and Kanchan Singh/Shyamlal. No doubt
about it that Kanchan Devi was appointed on 05.05.1986
and Shyamlal on 15.04.1985, whereas Virendra Singh was
appointed on 01.12.1994. The respondent was also
appointed against a vacant post though initially for a period
of three months, but his term was extended from time to
time. The principle and ratio except the date of appointment
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16577-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-575/2024]
are same. The judgment in case of Shyamlal (supra)
assailed up to Hon’ble Supreme Court as SLP was dismissed
on 27.04.2012.
9. After taking note of observation made by learned Single
Judge while dismissing the writ petition and also review
petition, we are of the view that the matter was rightly
considered on the basis of ratio laid down in case of
Shyamlal (supra) and Kanchan Devi (supra). We are
fully in agreement with learned Single Judge on the reasons
assigned by him while deciding the writ petition and the
review petition. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in
the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Hence, the instant SAW is hereby dismissed with pending
application, if any.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /101
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:39:16 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 06:44:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
