[2025:RJ-JD:33280-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15271/2023 Shankar Lal Baranda S/o Shri Khemaji Baranda, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Mukam Post Balawada, Mahadev Fala, Balawada, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

2. Director Cum Joint Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Deputy Director, Department Of Local Self Government, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Deputy Director Regional, Local Self Government Udaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VLS Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

29/07/2025

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present petition is no more res-integra and has been decided by this Court in Narendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11058/2023) along with other connected matters, decided on 04.12.2024, the operative part of the said judgment reads as follows:-

“5. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the petitioners have completed 10 years of continuous service before 10.04.2006. The petitioners were seeking regularization which was being considered and then a common decision was subsequently arrived at by the respondents, in which, it was notified that such candidates, who have completed 10 years of continuous services and were appointed upto 10.04.2006, without intervention of the Court, then such persons shall be screened and given appointment on regular basis.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute regarding regularization was resolved by the respondents themselves through the Notification of 27.01.2011, whereby a considered decision was taken by the Government to amend the Rule 10 of Rules of 1964, providing a scope of regularization to the persons, who have served more than 10 years of continuous service on or before 10.04.2006, and admittedly, as per Annex-13 of the writ petition, the petitioners have served continuous services for more than 10 years before 10.04.2006, which is substantiated by the report of the Committee.

7. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, given that once it is undisputed that the petitioners had completed 10 years of continuous services on or before 10.04.2006, and considering the uniform notification by the State Government amending Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, the provisions are squarely applicable to the present petitioners, making them entitled to be regularized/benefit from the decision introduced by the respondents effective from 27.01.2011. Any lethargic decision making on the part of the respondents cannot deprive the petitioners of the uniform decision taken by the respondents themselves while keeping in tandem the facts that they had completed 10 years of continuous service and also the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, which has been amended by the Government.

8. The precedent judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the present case, because those judgments deal with regular regularization, disputes regarding 10 years of service, and retrospectivity whereas in the present case, there is no such dispute involved, because the respondents took a considered decision to amend the law, particularly Rule 10 of the Rules 1964, by introducing the notification dated 27.01.2011. This notification was intended to provide regularization benefits to persons in continuous service who had completed 10 years of service before 10.04.2006, without intervention of the Court.

9. Consequently, there is no question of retrospectivity, as the State itself has taken a considere