PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefits of the selection grades from the date from which the services have been regularized. The respondents may kindly be further directed to revise the selection grades accordingly on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service and to pay the all consequential benefits as such. The respondents may kindly be further directed to pay the arrears of the same with 9% interest after completing aforesaid exercise. (ii) The writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed in terms of the judgments placed as Annex.P/6 by granting the same relief. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Gopal Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4950/2015 decided on 20.11.2017) , which reads as under:- "In the present writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner in para-1 of the writ petition that the controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhura Ram Saharan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: 2013(3) CDR 1561 and based on the said judgment, reliefs have been claimed in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Chandra Ram: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.589/2015 decided on 03.07.2017 , a larger Bench of this Court at Jaipur, has laid down that the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Gopa Ram : D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.44/2016 , which judgment had upheld the judgment in the case of Bhura Ram (supra), did lay down correct law and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to any relief based on the judgment in the case of Bhura Ram (Supra). It is further submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner in view of the principles laid down by the larger Bench, would be accorded to him. The larger Bench in the case of Chandra Ram (supra) answered the issues raised as under:- Issues:- "(a) Whether the respondents stand regularized from the date of appointment after scrutiny by the District Establishment Committee? (b) Whether their order of regularization is still valid or has been annulled? (c) Whether the appellants can assail the order of regularization without having actually annulled it till today? (d) Whether there can be two dates for regularization of an employee, retrospective for some purposes and prospective for others? (e) Does Goparam (supra) lay down the correct law in distinguishing Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) and Surendra Mohnot (supra)?" Answers:- "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 and Ors. (supra); we are of the opinion that the respondent - employee would stand regularized from the date of regularization in service and prior to that. 38. QUESTION B Taking into consideration the recent decision, prior to two decades the regularization period was questioned by anybody, therefore, in a writ petition filed by the petitioner it will 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 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 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 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 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 adhocism will not be considered for seniority. In that view of the matter, there will be only one date for regularization, date of regularizing adhoc 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 and Ors. v. 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 v. Surendra Mohnot and Ors. (supra). Thus, the decision of State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. 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. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to act strictly in accordance with the judgment in the case of Chandra Ram (supra)."
(3.) In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms.;