Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Dr Dinesh Pal Singh ... on 9 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 532/2016
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical and
Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director (Public Health), Medical and Health Services,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur.
Appellants
VERSUS
1. Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal son of Shri Chitar Mal Ujjwal, resident of
Jodhpur.
2. Virendra Singh Meel son of Shri Ramji Lal Meel, aged 40
years, resident of Hansalsar Via Baragaon, Tehsil Udaipurwati,
District Jhunjhunun.
3. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary son of Shri S.S. Chaudhary, aged 38
years, resident of E-632, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur.
4. Virendra Singh son of Shri Laxman Singh, resident of Dorasar,
Tehsil & District Jhunjhunun.
5. Shrawan Kumar Rewar son of Shri Deepa Ram Rewar,
resident of Village Charnwash Post Bhirana Via Losal, District
Sikar.
6. Sukhbir Kaur daughter of Shri Sohan Singh wife of
Ramandeep Singh, resident of 61/111 Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,
Jaipur.
7. Sudesh Kumar Yadav son of Shri Omkar Singh Yadav,
resident of Village & Post Mandala Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (2 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
8. Rajesh Saini son of Shri Puran Mal Saini, resident of Mohalla
Pratap Bas, Behind Gaushala, Alwar.
9. Mukh Ram Meena son of Shri Rampratap Meena, resident of
Village Indpura Post Thana (Rajaji Ka), Tehsil Rajgarh District
Alwar.
10. Moahmmed Israeel Khan son of Shri Maan Kahn, resident of
VPO Naswari Via Ramgarh Tehsil Laxmangarh District Alwar.
11. Ashish Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, resident of House
No. J-19, Ambedkar Colony, Kunhadi, Kota.
12. Salochana wife of Shri Ummed Singh, resident of Bharki,
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunun.
13. Dinesh Kumar Shivran son of Shri Nemi Chand Shivran,
resident of Shivrana Ka Bas, Post Narodara, Tehsil Laxmangarh
District Sikar.
14. Nitu Sharma wife of Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma daughter
of Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma, resident of Village Udarasar Post
Raydhana, District Nagaur.
15. Heena wife of Shri Hanuman Choudhary daughter of Shri
Rupa Ram, resident of Oddo Ka Vas, Raniwada, District Jalore.
16. Kamlesh Kumari wife of Shri Vijay Singh, resident of Village
& Post Chrani, Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunun.
17. Chhinno Kumari wife of Shri Jai Singh daughter of Shri
Chand, resident of VPO Gundau Tehsil Sanchore District Jalore.
18. Kusumlata Sharma wife of Shri Kajodi Ram Sharma daughter
of Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, resident of Major Kawal Singh
Nagar, Plot No. 45-A Phase-II, Jaipur Road, Alwar.
19. Prasanna Kumari wife of Shri Mohan Rai daughter of Shri
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (3 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
Damodaran, resident of Dhanol, Tehsil Raniwara District Jalore.
20. Durga Meena wife of Shri Babu Lal daughter of Shri Shankar
Lal, resident of VPO Bhokhala Pal Bichhiwara, Tehsil Bichhiwara
District Dungarpur.
21. Rinki Pradhan wife of Shri Rajesh daughter of Shri Brijendra
Kumar Pradhan, resident of Mohalla Johara Chandela Patel Nagar,
Pratap Bhandh Road, Alwar.
22. Manju Shekhawat daughter of Shri Rishal Singh wife of Shri
Mahendra Singh, resident of Plot No. 13, Ramkripal Nagar, Jaipur
Road, Chor Dungari, Alwar.
23. Usha Rani wife of Shri Khushi Ram daughter of Shri Prabhati
Lal, resident of Village Tijara Post Tijara, Mohalla Kagdiwara,
Tijara District Alwar.
24. Geeta Devi wife of Shri Ramotar daughter of Shri Dharam
Singh, resident of Mohalla Khadana Padav Ki Chakki, Alwar.
25. Susheela Kumari wife of Shri Suresh Kumar Choudhary
daughter of Shri Chand, resident of Village & Post Sediya, Tehsil
Sanchore District Jalore.
26. Suman Kanwar daughter of Shri Guman Singh, wife of Shri
Bhanwar Singh, resident of care of Shiv Ji Singh, Plot No. 197,
Jagdamaba Nagar E, Takiya Ki Choki, Rawan Gate, Kalwar Road,
Jhotwara, Jaipur.
27. Lalita Kumari wife of Shri Hardev Singh daughter of Shri
Norang Lal, resident of Village Bherupura, District Sikar.
28. Beena Kumari wife of Shri Gurudutt Saini daughter of Shri
Narayan Lal Saini, resident of Sad Ka Tila, Company Bagh Road,
Alwar.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (4 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
29. Savitri wife of Shri Satyaveer Singh daughter of Shri Sher
Singh, resident of Village & Post Ghardana Khurd, Bhuhana
District Jhunjhunun.
30.Kusum Saraswat daughter of Shri Chhittarmal wife of Shri
Brajesh Saraswat, resident of Ward No. 19, Banapuria Mohalla,
Baswa, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa.
31. Mohammed Rashid son of Shri Gulam Suleman, resident of
Fatehpur Shekhawati, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar.
32. Sunil Kumar son of Shri Sheodan Singh, resident of 109/18,
Meena Colony, Veerji Ki Bagichi, Near Railway Station, Gangapur
City, District Sawaimadhopur.
33. Ram Singh Jat son of Shri Bajrang Lal, resident of Piplet Post
Kyarda Kalan, Tehsil Khandar District Sawaimadhopur.
34. Kheta Ram son of Shri Prahlad Ram, resident of Rajberi
Malva Post Kharapar, Tehsil Gida District Barmer.
35. Nand Lal son of Shri Ram Lal, resident of Sanvloda
Ladkhani, Tehsil & District Sikar.
36. Parul daughter of Shri Laxmi Vallabh Sharma wife of Shri
Jitender Singh, resident of 65-A, Khirni Phatak, R.K. Puram,
Khatipura, Jaipur.
37. Lalita wife of Shri Ramniwas Verma, resident of 867, In front
of SBBJ Bank, Ward No. 13, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.
38. Kalu Ram son of Shri Lal Chand, resident of Ward No. 4, 83
LNP (Jorkiyan), Tehsil Padampur District Sri Ganganagar.
39. Gouri Saxena daughter of Shri Nirmal Kumar wife of Shri
Chintan Saxena, resident of B-35, Sethi Colony, Transport Nagar,
Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (5 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
40. Aijan Vaishnav daughter of Shri Sohan Das wife of Shri
Satya Dev Vaishnave, resident of Hurda Road, Gulabpura, Near
New Tehsil, Prabhat Kunj, Hurda District Bhilwara.
41. Saroj Kumari wife of Shri Chanderbhan daughter of Shri
Nihal Singh, resident of Village Patel Nagar, Post Badamgarh
Tehsil Chirawa District Jhunjhunun.
42. Santosh wife of Shri Om Prakash, resident of Ramnagar,
Rayel Dharamkanta, Piprali Road, Sikar.
43. Nirmala Kumari wife of Shri Suresh Somra daughter of Shri
Richhpal Singh, resident of Village Moi-sada Post Moi-Purani,
Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunun.
44. Lata wife of Shri Rajesh Chahar daughter of Shri Mahipal,
resident of Chahar House, Bypass Road, Singhana, Village & Post
Singhana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunun.
45.Champa wife of Mool Chand, resident of Suliyawas Danta
Ramgarh Tehsil Danta Ramgarh District Sikar.
46. Deepak Kumar Sharma son of Shri Harswaroop Sharma,
resident of In front of Raghu Flour Mill, Subhash Nagar C-18,
Bharatpur.
47. Ghanshyam Nitharwal son of Shri Bhaktwar Singh, resident
of Jagdama Colony, Piprali Road, Samarthpura, Sikar.
48. Ghanshyam Yadav son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Yadav, resident of
Dhani Khatiwala, Post Maonda (R.S.), Tehsil Neem Ka Thana,
District Sikar.
49. Pramila wife of Shri Jeet Singh daughter of Shri Natwar
Singh, resident of Village Elakhar Post Kishanpura, Tehsil Khetri,
District Jhunjhunun.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (6 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
50. Sunita Chaneja wife of Shri Vidhyadhar Singh daughter of
Shri Sunder Lal, resident of D-225 IIIrd B, Khetri Nagar, Tehsil
Khetri District Jhunjhunun.
51. Neki Ram Borkh son of Shri Bhola Ram Borkh, resident of
Dhani Hakimwala, Shiv Nagar, Dhera Jhori, Guhala, Tehsil Neem
Ka Thana, Guhala, Sikar.
52. Savita Shrma wife of Shri Pankaj Sharma daughter of Shri
Shankar Lal Sharma, resident of Ward No. 22, Pilani Road,
Chirawa, Tehsil Chirawa District Jhunjhunun.
53. Lalita Meena wife of Shri Vinod Kumar daughter of Shri
Radheshyam Meena, resident of Ravji Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 10,
Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
54. Sahi Ram Verma son of Shri Girdhari Lal Verma, resident of
VPO Beelwa, Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunun.
55. Man Mohan Singh son of Shri Surjan Singh, resident of Ward
No. 43, Bhagat Singh Colony, Near T.P.S. School, Navalgarh
Road, Sikar.
56. Sheesh Ram Gurjar son of Shri Nathu Lal Gurjar, resident of
Village Haripura, Via Patan Tehsil Neema Ka Thana, District Sikar.
57. Kamlesh Kumar Saini son of Shri Prabhat Lal Saini, resident
of Dhani Paliyan Post Kerpura, Tehsil Khandela District Sikar.
58. Mahesh Kumar Yadav son of Shri Balu Ram Yadav, resident of
VPO Rajpur Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
59. Arshad Baig son of Shri Hanif Baig, resident of Village & Post
Katrathal Tehsil & District Sikar.
60. Mohammed Naphis son of Shri Hussain Khan, resident of
Village & Post Patan District Sikar.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (7 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
61. Shishupal son of Shri Bhanwar Lal, resident of Village
Khatipura Via Khuri Bari District Sikar.
62. Mahesh Chand son of Shri Pooran Chand, resident of
Saraswat Colony, Sikandra Road, Bandikui Tehsil Buswa District
Dausa.
63. Sumitra daughter of Shri Banwari Lal wife of Shri Prahlad
Singh, resident of Jhanjhot Post Khudot, Tehsil Chirawa District
Jhunjhunun.
64. Ramniwas Dodwadiya son of Shri Raghunath Ram, resident
of Village Sihodi Via Thoi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar.
65. Ravinder Saxena son of Shri Kailash Narayan, resident of
D/398, Murlidhar Vyas Nagar, Bikaner.
66. Bhagwati Aswani daughter of Shri Ram Chandra wife of Shri
Lucky Arora, resident of 40, Ward No. 26, Near Kot Gate, Railway
Fatak, Bikaner.
67. Chandu Soni daughter of Shri Bhikam Chand Soni wife of
Shri Rajkumar Soni, resident of Near Tata Tower, Gautam Chowk,
New Line, Gangashahar, Bikaner.
68. Vinod Gehlot daughter of Shri Budharam Gehlot wife of Shri
Jagdish Bhati, resident of Behind M.S. College, Ranisar Bass,
Bikaner.
69. Bindu Garg daughter of Shri Devraj Garg wife of Shri
Mahendra Kumar Malpani, resident of Quarter No. 5-C-9, Duplex
Colony, Bikaner.
70. Veena Vyas daughter of Shri Jaikishan Bhadani wife of Shri
Rajeev Kumar Vyas, resident of Inside Idgah Bari, Bikaner.
71. Hemlata Tanwar daughter of Shri Prithvi Singh Tanwar wife of
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (8 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
Shri Devi Singh Shekhawat, resident of Sukh Niwas, Rawat's
Mohalla, Behind Nagar Nigam Office, Bikaner.
72. Jaibala daughter of Shri Rameshwar Lal wife of Shri Banwari
Lal, resident of Near Kalimata Mandir, Inside Vishwakarma Gate,
Bikaner.
73. Ranjeet Kachhawa son of Shri Kishan Lal Kachhawa, resident
of Behind Lady Elgin School, Bikaner.
74. Surender Singh Shekhawat son of Shri Dashrath Singh
Shekhawat, resident of Gali No. 1, Near Shivbari Circle,
Ambedkar Colony, Bikaner.
75. Shiji Xavier daughter of Shri K.L. Xavier wife of Shri Benoy
M. Michael, resident of A-57, Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri, Bikaner.
76. Maneeram Bishnoi son of Shri Jetha Ram Bishnoi, resident of
Sainsar, Tehsil Nokha District Bikaner.
77. Neelam Kumari daughter of Shri Chhaju Ram Kashyap wife of
Shri Som Lal, resident of RIICO Road No. 3, Industrial Area, Rani
Bazar, Bikaner.
78. Pawan Songara son of Shri Panchi Lal Songara, resident f A-
86, Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri, Bikaner.
79. Ramniwas son of Shri Banwari Singh, resident of Village
Udairamsar, Tehsil & District Bikaner.
80. Krishna Swami daughter of Shri Dhoordass Swami wife of
Ravinder Kumar, resident of In front of Nagar Nigam, Hanuman
Hattha, Bikaner.
81. Tara Chaudhar daughter of Shri Ganesha Ram Chaudhary
wife of Shri Shiv Karan Chaudhar, resident of C-2, Gandhi
Colony, Pawanpuri, Bikaner.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (9 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
82. Sushil Yadav son of Shri Surendra Singh Yadav, resident of 4-
E-136, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner.
83. Shobha Sharma daughter of Shri Kishan Lal Sharma wife of
Shri Aju Kaushik, resident of Adarsh Colony, Medical College
Road, Bikaner.
84. Meena Manki daughter of Shri J.K. Manki wife of Shri
Bhawani Singh Rathore, resident of Near NAwal Sagar Well, Majli
Sa Ka Bass, Bikaner.
85.Shobhna Barupal daughter of Shri Om Prakash Barupal wife
of Shri Bhanwar Lal, resident of Ram Dev Temple Campus,
Amarpura Bass, Bhinasar, Bikaner.
86.Shamsher Khan son of Shri Bashir Khan, resident of Gali No.
17, Dhobhi Talai, Bikaner.
87.Bindu Vyas daughter of Shri Jethmal Vyas wife of Shri
Anupam Pareek, Pareek Chowk, Bikaner.
88. Mukesh Karad son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Karad, resident of
Sultanpur, Digod, Tehsil & District Kota.
89.Rajendra Kumar Beniwal son of Shri Bhagwan Sahay, resident
of Manoharpur, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur.
90.Ghanshyam Raigar son of Shri Pooran Mal Raigar, resident of
Saiwar Tehsil Shahpura District Jaipur.
91.Ghanshyam Bairwa son of Shri Amar Lal Bairwa, resident of
Ramganj Mandi, District Kota.
92. Rajesh Kumar Tarmoliya son of Shri Madan Lal Tarmoliya,
resident of Ward No. 13, Mangorl, District Baran.
93.Laxmi Godwani daughter of Shri Chandi Ram Godwani,
resident of Quarter No. 3, C.H.C. Dadabadi, Kota.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (10 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
94. Deepshikha Sharma daughter of Shri Mukut Bihari Sharma,
resident of C-21, Krishnanagar, Bajrang Nagar, Police Line, Kota.
95. Vandana Rajauria daughter of Shri Jagdish Babu Rajauria,
resident of House No. 106, Mahatma Gandhi Colony, Mala Fatak,
Station Road, Kota.
96. Ved Prakash Kaushik son of Shri Rajendra Kaushik, resident
of Ren Basera, Khai Road, Ladpura, Kota.
97.Deepak Joshi son of Shri Dharm Prakash, resident of JDA Plot
No. 9, Parshurampuri, Jal Mahal, Amer Road, Jaipur.
98. Lokesh Dadhich son of Shri Nathu Lal Dadhich, resident of
Playatha, Baran at present residing at D-11, Ujjawal Vihar,
Borkheda, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota.
99. Devendra Kumar Sharma son of Shri Shambhu Dayal
Sharma, resident of K-191, Narayan Vihar, Jaipur.
100. Gajendra Kumar Nagar son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Nagar,
resident of Sarola Kallan, Tehsil Khanpur District Jhalawar.
101. Sunder Lal Yadav son of Shri Mohan Lal Yadav, resident of
Dhani Kankarwali, Village Mau, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District
Sikar.
102. Sanjay Chhipa son of Shri Kailash Chand Chhipa, resident of
Bajaj Khana, Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar.
103. Sunita Dubey wife of Shri Dushayant Dixit, resident of
House No. 96, Malviya Nagar, Police Line, Bundi.
104. Anita Vanwari wife of Shri Ashok Kumar, resident of House
No. 1-J-35, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota.
105. Premlata Suman wife of Shri Chandan Suman, resident of
House No. 70, Kesar Bagh, Police Line, Kota.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (11 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
106. Niranjana Chouhan wife of Shri Laxminarayan, resident of
Main Road, Rang Talaw, Kota Junction District Kota.
107. Madhu Verma wife of Shri Harishankar Meghwal, resident
of Ward No. 9, Meghwalon Ka Mohalla, Kapren, District Bundi.
108. Sunita Mahawar wife of Shri Kiran Kumar Verma, resident
of 1076, Mahaveer Nagar 2nd, Kota.
109. Balwant Singh Nagar son of Shri Kalu Lal Nagar, resident of
Village Gadiya Post Samarai, Tehsil Jhalrapatan District Jhalawar.
110. Mukesh Rathore son of Shri Mohan Lal Rathore, resident of
Bos Colony, Sultanpur, District Kota.
111. Surendra Kumar Bhil son of Shri Dhanraj Bhil, resident of
Village Genta, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota.
112 Devendra Chaudhary son of Shri Giriraj Prasad Chaudhary,
resident of 4-J-9, Talwandi, Kota.
113. Pooja Arora daughter of Shri T.C. Arora, resident of 9/13
Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Kota.
114. Manoj Adhikari son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Adhikari, resident
of B-121, Indra Colony, Vigyan Nagar, Kota.
115. Mahesh Kumar Gocher son of Shri Babu Lal Gocher, resident
of Gayatri Nagar, Khedali Ganj, Atru,District Baran.
116. Murlidhar Nagar son of Shri Banshi Lal Nagar, resident of
61, Mahavbeer Nagar IInd, Kota.
117. Mohammed Asif son of Shri Zafar Mohammed, resident of
House No. 34, Aman Colony Vigyan Nagar, Kota.
118. Reena Nagar wife of Shri Rajendra Prasad Nagar, resident
of 3/1, Medical College Campus, Kota.
119. Dharmraj Nagar son of Shri Janki Lal Nagar, resident of
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (12 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
3/13 Medical College Campus, Kota.
120. Hariom Sen son of Shri Govind Lal Sen, resident f
Chandarshekhar Colony, Sandari Road, Talera, District Bundi.
121. Poonam Mudgal wife of Shri Deepak Joshi, resident of JDA
Plot No. 9, Parshurampuri, Jal Mahal, Amer Road, Jaipur.
122. Lalit Kishore Karad son of Shri Dhanna Lal Karad, resident
of Sultanpur Bhonra Chouraha, Sultanpur, Digod, District Kota.
123. Hemraj Singhal son of Shri Veniprasad Singhal, resident of
KR12, Third Type, GAD Colony, Shrinathpuram, Kota.
124. Ritu Rani wife of Shri Dinesh Kumar Bansal daughter of
Shri Anand, resident of Jheel Ki Dhani, Ward No. 26, Jagheer,
Baswa, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa.
125. Kuljyoti Meena wife of Shri Ghanshyam Meena daughter of
Shri Tejkaran, resident of Badiyal Road, Bandikui, Behind Saini
Dharamkanta, Baswa, Bandikui District Dausa.
126. Bahadur Singh Jat son of Shri Bhola Ram Jat, resident of
Hakimwala, Dhera Jhori, Guhala, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana District
Sikar.
127. Jaiprakash Yadav son of Shri Mobha Ram, resident of
Jagdamba Market, IIIrd Sector, Khetri Nagar, District
Jhunjhunun.
128. Dheeraj Kumar son of Shri Avinash Chandra Singhal,
resident of 8, Pratap Colony, Kumhergate, Bharatpur.
129. Naval Singh son of Shri Prabhoo Singh, resident of VPO
Astawan, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur.
130. Suresh Chand Yadav son of Shri Hanuman Prasad, resident
of Kachreda, Post Raipur Patan District Sikar.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (13 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
131. Rajendra Kumar Yadav son of Shri Jainarayan Yadav,
resident Ramsinghpura, Post Chhaja Kanagal Tehsil Neem Ka
Thana, District Sikar.
132. Parma Devi wife of Shri Surendra Kumar Verma daughter
of Shri Nanu Lal, aged 39 years, resident of Sikar Vidhyapeeth
School, Basant Vihar, Sikar.
133. Sumitra Ola wife of Shri Sumer Singh Ola daughter of Shri
Omkarmal, aged 36 years, resident of Village Post Bajor, District
Sikar.
134. Sampati Devi wife of Shri Krishna Bihari Chaliya, aged 39
years, resident of Near Ward No. 4 School, Gram Shrimadhopur
Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar.
135. Nirmala Choudhary wife of Shri Kumbha Ram Arya, aged
39 years, resident of Village Kalyanpura, Dhani Saran, Post Thol,
District Sikar.
136. Bhoop Singh son of Shri Raghuvir Singh, aged 41 years,
resident of Village Majri Khurd, Post Majri Kalan, Tehsil Neemrana
District Alwar.
137. Tejprakash son of Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, aged 38 years,
resident of Tiwari Mohalla, Ward No. 24, Bandikui, Dausa.
138. Vinod Kumar Sharma son of Shri Shyam Lal Sharma, aged
39 years, resident of Behind Water Works Colony, Bandikui,
Dausa.
139. Rakhi Sharma wife of Shri Pankaj Sharma, aged about 36
years, resident of 67/b/1 Gali No. 4, Police Line, Krishna Nagar,
Bajrang Nagar, Naya Nohra, Kota.
140. Saroj Saini daughter of Shri S.R. Saini wife of Shri Vinod
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (14 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
Saini resident of Plot No. 155, R.K. Puram, Syopur, Sanganer,
Jaipur.
141. Kamlesh Kumari Gupta wife of Shri Neeraj Kumar Gupta
daughter of Shri Ganesh Prasad Gupta, aged 39 years, resident
of Plot No. 193, Pashupatinath Nagar, Chak Gator Airport Road
Near 6 No. Bus Stand, (Mini Chakshu), Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,
Jaipur.
142. Neeraj Kumar son of Shri Pitam Chand Gupta, aged 39
years, resident of Plot No. 193, Pashupatinath Nagar, Chak Gator
Airport Road, Near 6 No. Bus Sand (Mini Chakshu), Pratap Nagar,
Sanganer, Jaipur.
143. Girdhari Lal Sewda son of Shri Bega Ram Sewda, aged 46
years, resident of Village Rewasi, Post Sihot Badi, Tehsil &
District Sikar.
144. Shashibala Sharma wife of Shri Shanti Swaroop Sharma,
aged 53 years, resident of Nanigate, Ward No. 117/16, Opp.
Maheshwari School, Sikar.
145. Sarvesh Kanwar wife of Late Shri Mahendra Singh daughter
of Shri Mahendra Singh, aged 46 years, resident of VPO
Bhagega, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana District Sikar.
146. Ashok Kumar Sharma son of Shri Ram Chandra Sharma,
aged 41 years, resident of Shiv Colony, Plot No. 12, Mansarovar
Metro Station, Jaipur.
147. Babu Lal Yadav son of Latur Mal Yadav, aged 38 years,
resident of Village & Post Ratanpura, Tehsil Bansur District Alwar.
148. Gurpinder Kaur wife of Shri Malvinder Singh resident of
Ward No. 29, Sindhi Mohalla, Hanumangarh Town, District
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (15 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
Hanumangarh.
149. Rajendra Kumar son of Shri Pyare Lal, resident of Ward No.
15, Bhartiyo Ki Dhani, Ratangarh District Churu.
150. Nirmala Kumari wife of Shri Shiv Raj, aged 40 years,
resident of Ward No. 21, Gurunanak Basti, Sangaria District
Hanumangarh.
151. Bhag Chand Yogi son of Shri Ram Sahai Yogi, aged 38
years, resident of Village Jodhapura, Post Thikeriya, Tehsil Sikrai,
District Dausa.
152. Sanjay Singh son of Shri Avadh Bihari Singh, aged 42
years, resident of House No. 290, Bajrang Nagar, Near Police
Line, Kota.
153. Shashibala wife of Shri Anil Sharma daughter of Shri
Mahesh Chand Kaushik, aged 42 years, resident of Neemrana
District Alwar.
154. Smt. Mukesh Yadav daughter of Shri Ramniwas wife of Shri
Devendra Kumar Yadav, aged 43 years, resident of Village
Chandpur, Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar.
Respondents
Connected with
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.548/2016
1.The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical and
Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director (Public Health), Medical and Health Services,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (16 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur.
Appellants
Versus
Dr. Prem Singh son of Shri Arjun Singh, resident of Near Tak
Hospital, Nayapura (BSF), Jodhpur.
Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 395/2024
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical and
Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director (Public Health), Medical and Health Services,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director Gazetted, Department of Medical and
Health Jaipur Rajasthan
Versus
Dr Dinesh Pal Singh S/o Shri Kan Singh, Aged About 49 Years, B
19 Shastri Nagar Jodhpur Rajasthan
Connected with
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 356/2021
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health Services, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Public Health), Department of Medical and
Health, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Zone
Jodhpur, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Yudhveer Singh son of Shri Jawan Singh, aged about 60 years,
resident of 40-A, Ajit Colony, Near Circuit House, Jodhpur (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (17 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
----Respondent
connected with
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1008/2022
1. State of Rajasthan, through its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Medical and Health Services,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, (Public Health) Department of Medical and
Health, Health Bhawan, Jaipur
3. The Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Zone
Udaipur, Udaipur.
4. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Dr. Devendra Singh Rao son of Late Shri Jorawar Singh, aged
about 58 years, resident of 2 Patho Ki Magri, Sewashram Circle,
Near Anil Orthopedic Hospital Udaipur (Raj.) Mobile No
9414386228.
----Respondent
connected with
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1126/2022
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Medical and Health Services,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Public Health), Department of Medical
and Health, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Zone
Udaipur, Udaipur.
4. The Principal Medical Officer, Govt. District Hospital,
Doongarpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Dr. Bhagwati Lal Bhatt son of Late Shri Khushali Ram Bhatt,
aged about 61 Years, resident of 15 New Jaishree Colony
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (18 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
Pandey Ji Ki Badi Dhul Cout Sundarwas Road Udaipur Raj
Mobile No 9460573589
----Respondent
connected with
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 117/2023
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Medical and Health
Services, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.. The Director (Public Health), Department of Medical
and Health, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Medical and Health Services Zone
Udaipur, Udaipur.
4. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Udaipur.
5. The Superintendent, Pannadhay Govt. Women
Hospital, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Dr. Vaseem Ahmed son of Abdul Majid, aged about 60 years,
resident of 78 A Panchwati Udaipur (Raj.) Mobile No.
9413218304.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
Ms. Anita Rajpurohit, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khilary, Advocate
Mr. Deepesh Birla, Advocate
Mr. Divik Mathur, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (19 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] REPORTABLE 09/07/2025 Per Hon'ble Mr. Sandeep Shah, J:
The D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos.532 of 2016 and 548 of 2016 have been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12th February 2014 passed by the writ Court whereby the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9583 of 2008 titled "Dr. Prem Singh v. State of Rajasthan & ors.", S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9583 of 2008 titled " Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal v. State of Rajasthan & ors." and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9584 of 2008 "Dr. Dinesh Kumar Soni v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors." were allowed with the direction to the State Government to grant benefit of continuity of service to the petitioners and for reckoning the services rendered by the petitioners from the initial date of appointment for all purposes and while further directing that the appointment shall be deemed to be made under the provisions of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rules of 1963).
2. As far as D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 395 of 2024 titled "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Dinesh Pal Singh" is concerned, the same has been filed against the order dated 24 th August 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition has been allowed in light of the judgment passed in Dr. Prem Singh (supra).
3. There is a delay of 588 days in filing the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 395 of 2024. Considering that the delay has been condoned in similar other cases, I.A. No. 01/23 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (20 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
4. As far as D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 356 of 2021 titled "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Yadhuveer Singh" is concerned, the same has been filed against the order dated 25 th February 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition has been allowed in light of the judgment passed in Dr. Prem Singh (supra).
5. As far as D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1008 of 2022 titled "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Devendra Singh Rao" is concerned, the same has been filed against the order dated 28 th September 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition has been allowed in light of the judgment passed in Dr. Prem Singh (supra).
6. As far as D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1126 of 2022 titled "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Bhagwati Lal Bhatt" is concerned, the same has been filed against the order dated 28 th September 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition has been allowed in light of the judgment passed in Dr. Prem Singh (supra).
7. As far as D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 117 of 2023 titled "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Vaseem Ahmed" is concerned, the same has been filed against the order dated 28 th September 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition has been allowed in light of the judgment passed in Dr. Prem Singh (supra).
8. Against the aforesaid order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9584 of 2008, an appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan, being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 380 of 2016, titled "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Soni", which came to be (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (21 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27 th May 2016, on the ground of limitation, in the following terms:
" The instant intra-court appeal is reported to be barred by 739 days.
Having regard to the contentions made in the application u/.s 5 of the Limitation Act, this court is not satisfied with reasons assigned for condoning the delay occurred in filing the instant appeal. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby rejected.
Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeal is hereby dismissed."
9. Subsequently, the State filed a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (C) No. 29615 of 2016, titled "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Soni", before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20th October 2016 in the following terms:-
"We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."
10. Subsequently, a review petition against the above-mentioned dismissal of the SLP was filed, which was also dismissed vide order dated 9th March 2017 in the following terms:-
"Delay condoned.
We have perused the Review Petition and record of the Special Leave petition and are convinced that the order of which review has been sought, does not suffer from any apparent error warranting its consideration.
The review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed."(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (22 of 37) [SAW-395/2024]
11. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State Government submits that the initial appointment of the writ petitioners was on contractual/temporary/ad-hoc basis in the year 1996 and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi" reported in (2009) 12 SCC 49, the services rendered as ad-hoc employee cannot be counted for the purpose of counting of the entire service and that can only be counted as a regular appointment from 26th September 2008 when they were appointed under the Rajasthan Rural Medical & Health Services Rules, 2008, which subsequently were repealed on 03 rd January 2012 and the services were treated thereafter under the Rules of 1963. He submits that the learned writ Court has erred in law in not considering this aspect of the matter while allowing the writ petition. It has been asserted that the initial appointment was on temporary basis and though pay scale and other emoluments also were granted but the appointment in question was temporary till the appointments were made through the RPSC and therefore, the services rendered earlier could not be counted.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners has supported the order of the writ Court and stated that the initial appointment of the writ petitioners was on temporary basis/contractual basis and the same was done after following the entire procedure and also against the vacant posts, which will be clear from perusal of the order dated 28 th November 1996 passed by the respondents. It has further been asserted that the appointment was made by inviting the applications and the recruitment exercise was undertaken by a Selection Committee (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (23 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] headed by the District Collector and even roster was followed for appointment. It has thus been asserted that the appointment order had all the trappings of regular recruitment, thus, the assertion of the respondents that the appointments were not as per rules is not at all correct. It has further been asserted that against the same impugned order the appeal filed by the State Government in "Dr. Dinesh Kumar Soni" has already been rejected and, therefore, the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed, more particularly, when the SLP and the review against the original SLP order have also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
13. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides, we would first of all consider the nature of the appointment. A perusal of the appointment order dated 28th November 1996 will reveal that the appointments specifically were shown against the vacant post (thus showing existence of cadre post upon which appointment was made) and after following the entire procedure i.e. inviting of applications, appearing before the Selection Committee and observation of the roster. Not only this, the regular pay scales and all the other allowances have been granted to the persons appointed and the appointments were made under the Rules of 1963. The appointment not being through the RPSC, can at best be treated as temporary appointments under Rules 26 of the Rules of 1963. The specific provision in this regard has been made under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963 for urgent temporary appointment, which provides as under:-
"26. Urgent Temporary Appointment.- A vacancy in the Service which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (24 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] recruitment or by promotion under the rules may be filled by the Government or by the %competent to make appointments, as the case may be, by appointing in an officiating capacity thereto an officer eligible for appointment to the post by promotion or by appointing temporarily thereto a person eligible for direct recruitment to the Service, where such direct recruitment has been provided under the provisions of these Rules.
Provided that such an appointment will not be continued beyond a period of one year without referring the case to the Commission for concurrence, where such concurrence is necessary, and shall be terminated immediately on its refusal to concur;
Provided further that in respect of the Service or a post in Service for which both the above methods of recruitment have been prescribed, the Government or the Authority competent to make appointment, as the case may be, shall not save with the specific permission of the Government in the Department of Personnel in the case of State Services and Government in the Administrative Department concerned in respect of other services, fill the temporary, vacancy against the direct recruitment quota by a whole-time appointment for a period exceeding three months, otherwise than out of person eligible for direct recruitment and after a short term advertisement.
(2) In the event of non-availability of suitable persons, fulfilling the requirements of eligibility for promotion, Government may notwithstanding the condition of eligibility for promotion required under sub-rule (1) above, lay down general instructions for grant of permission to fill the vacancies on urgent temporary basis subject to such conditions and restrictions regarding pay and other allowances as it may direct. Such appointments shall however, be subject to concurrence of the Commission as required under the said sub-rule."
14. The respondents in one of the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11379 of 2018 titled "Dinesh Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & ors." which order is also subject matter of appeal in (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (25 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.395 of 2024 titled "State of Rajasthan v. Dinesh Pal Singh" admitted that the appointments by way of the order in question was under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963. The relevant part of the reply is as under:-
"6.That the averments made in para no. 6 & 7 of the writ petition are not admitted and same are emphatically denied. As stated above, the petitioner was appointed purely on adhoc basis under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 and later on his services were regularized after his selection through RPSC. The period of service rendered by the petitioner from 02.12.1996 to 28.11.2000 on adhoc/temporary basis under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963 cannot be said to be qualifying for regular service. A distinction has been carved out between those appointed on temporary basis and those who have been substantively or regularly appointed. The temporary employees cannot in any manner be equated with those who are regularly appointed. The State in its own wisdom deemed it fit to specify that the seniority in service would be determined from substantive appointment. The intent appears to be that only regular selection in accordance with the Rules has to be counted for seniority. The temporary appointment has been envisaged only for a short period in order to meet emergent situation and has to be for limited period. Temporary appointment even though it has continued beyond a period of one year cannot in any manner be construed to constitute substantive appointment, so as to confer seniority in service. Thus, this classification between those appointed on temporary basis and those appointed substantively cannot be held to be impermissible or discriminatory. Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits reasonable classification based on distinctive qualities between persons grouped together as against those who are left out.".
15. A perusal of the aforesaid reply reveals that the appointments were treated as "urgent temporary appointment"
which itself is clear from the perusal of Rule 26 that the same are (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (26 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] against the cadre post and the same were undertaken when the direct recruitment or promotion under the Rules could not take place and in that case either on officiating basis, (in case of promotion) or otherwise appointment of eligible persons (in case of direct recruitment) are appointed and can be continued for further period beyond one year also in case concurrence is received from the Commission.
16. In view of the admission made by the respondents themselves it is clear that the appointments were on urgent temporary basis and not ad-hoc basis. Ad hoc appointment has been defined under the Rajasthan Absorption of Surplus Personnel Rules, 1969 under rule 3(a) to be as under:-
"Ad hoc appointment means temporary appointment made without selection of the candidate by any of the methods of recruitment provided under the relevant service rules, or any orders of the Government where no service rules exist and otherwise than on the recommendation of the Commission if the post is in its purview."
17. A bare perusal of definition itself will reveal that ad hoc appointments are made without selection, which admittedly is not the case in the present appeals. Rather the appointments have been made on vacant posts (cadre posts) after issuance of advertisement and undertaking selection by Selection Committee, which is clear from perusal of appointment order itself.
18. Furthermore, as far as the case of State of Rajashthan & Ors. v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, that was the case of ad hoc appointment and not appointment on cadre post. Rather, (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (27 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] in the same judgment a distinction has been made between ad hoc appointments and the appointments on cadre post and reliance has been placed upon the proficiency test taken for granting appointment which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.18 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
"18. In order to become "a member of service a candidate must satisfy four conditions, namely,
(i) the appointment must be in a substantive capacity;
(ii) to a post in the service i.e. in a substantive vacancy;
(iii) made according to rules;
(iv) within the quota prescribed for the source.
Ad hoc appointment is always to a post but not to the cadre/service and is also not made in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules for regular appointment. Although the adjective "regular" was not used appointment mentioned there is obviously a need for regular appointment made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. What was implicit in the said paragraph of the G.O. when it refers to appointment to a cadre/service has been made explicit by the clarification dated 3-4-1993 given in respect of Point 2. The same has been incorporated in Para 3 of the G.O. dated 17- 2-1998."
19. In the case in hand, the appellants had invited a pubic advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Medical Officers, on temporary basis or till the availability of suitable candidates through the RPSC. The fact reveals that a Selection Committee was constituted and only the persons who were having the eligibility as per the Rules of 1963 were considered for appointment. The appointments were made after scrutiny of applications and verifying the qualification of the candidates. The appointment though shown to be on (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (28 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] contract/temporary basis but the nature of the service was identical to the work discharged by regularly selected Medical Officers and there was no distinction of work and job assigned between the writ petitioners and other Medical Officers working under the department of Medical and Health, post selection through RPSC. The writ petitioners were working against the regular posts and their placements were also made viz-a-viz those who were working on substantive basis on the post of Medical Officer. Not only this, the writ petitioners were given the same pay-scale and other benefits including allowances as payable to regularly appointed Medical Officers. The writ petitioners were permitted to continue under the same arrangement for years together about 12 years i.e. from 1996 till 2008. In the year 2008, for the purpose of providing services under the rural area, the State Government incorporated the Rules, namely, Rajasthan Rural Medical & Health Service Rules, 2008. After incorporation of the above mentioned rules, the Advertisement No.1/2008-09 dated 9th May 2008 was issued and the petitioners participated under the same and were placed thereafter in the then existing pay-scale of Medical Officer, however, under the name of Rural Medical Officer. Needless to emphasis that even post-appointment the petitioners have been discharging the same duties as they were discharging way back in the year 1996. The Rules of 2008 were subsequently repealed on 03 rd January 2012 and all persons working under the Rules of 2008 were treated to be working under the Rules of 1963. Thus it will be clear that for all the years the petitioners have been working on the same post and discharging the same duties as been discharged by regularly selected medical (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (29 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] officers and thus the distinction tried to be drawn by the respondents is without any basis and the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of services rendered way back since the year 1996.
20. The claim of the petitioners further find support from Rule 12(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which reads as under:-
"QUALIFYING SERVICE
12. Commencement of qualifying services
(a) xxxx
(b) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes over charge of the post to which he is first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity."
21. This Rule further makes it clear that even if appointed on officiating or temporary basis, the services of the petitioners are required to be counted from the first appointment date even for the purpose of grant of pension. Rule 95 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 in unequivocal term provides that a temporary employee who has worked for more than five years on contractual basis and has continued on the said post without interruption in service then the employees shall be entitled to privilege leave for such period during which he was under contractual appointment, while treating the said term as regular period of service. Rule 95 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 further makes it abundantly clear that the employees are entitled for privilege leave and for counting of their services rendered on contractual basis.
22. Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 provides as under:
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (30 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] "2. Extent of application.--These rules apply--
(i) to all persons appointed by the Government of Rajasthan to posts or services under its administrative control or in connection with the affairs of the State of Rajasthan on or after the seventh day of April, 1949.
(ii) to all persons appointed on or after the said day to such posts or services as a result of integration of the services of the Covenanting States, and
(a) to all persons appointed to such posts or services on the basis of contracts entered into by the Government of Rajasthan or by the Government of a Covenanting State in respect of such matters covered by these Rules as are not specially provided for in their contracts for appointment.
(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub clause (a)these rules shall also apply to the persons initially appointed to such posts or services on the basis of contarcts entered into but subsequently appointed in regular manner in respect of counting of contract service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The contracts service followed by regular appointment shall count as qualifying service for the purpose of pension if no contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund for the period of contract service has been paid by the Government. In cases where contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund has been paid by the Government, contract service would count for the purpose of pension if the concerned employee deposits in the general revenues of the State, the entire amount of contributions paid by the Government together with interest thereon @ 7% per annum for the period from the date of payment of contribution to the date of deposit in the general revenues of the State.
Provided that persons of the category specified in clause
(ii) may, within two months of the commencement of these Rules or of their appointment as a result of the said integration, whichever may be later, apply for retirement and shall be granted pension or gratuity in accordance with the rules by which they were governed previously to such commencement or appointment:
Provided further that these Rules shall not apply--
(a) to officers on deputation from the Government of India or from the Government of any State in India, other than (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (31 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] Rajasthan who will be governed by the rules applicable to them in their substantive appointments,
(b) to the Judges of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
(c) to the officers and servants of the said High Courts, who will be governed by rules made under clause (2) of Article 229 read with Article 2 38 of the Constitution of India, or
(d) to the Chairman and Members of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, who will be governed by regulations made under Article 318 of the Constitution of India,
(e) to members of the All India Services in matters covered by the Rules made by the Union Government,
(f) to persons paid from contingencies,
(g) to work charged employees, that is, persons who are not on regular establishment and are paid out of provision for expenditure on works, maintenance of works, or State trading schemes and similar other provision for funds, other than provisions under budget unit of appropriation 'Pay of Officers' and 'Pay of Establishment',
(h) to persons for whom special or specific provision in respect of any matter covered by these rules has been made in the rules regulating their recruitment and conditions of service framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or under any Law or rules for the time being in force applicable to such persons,
(i) to persons paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State under budget unit of appropriation "Pay of Officers" and "Pay of Establishment" and who are at the same time Workmen as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, except to the extent provided in case of persons covered by clause (h) above, in respect of the following of these Rules :--
(1) Rules 43 (c)and(d) regarding grant of honorarium. (2) Chapter Vl-Combination of Appointments (3) Chapter X and XI-Leave.
(4) Chapter XIII-Foreign service.
(5) Chapter XlV-service under Local Fund."
23. From the perusal of the same, it is revealed that even the contractual employees are governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and the exemption from operation of the Rules is with regard to work-charge employees. It is not the case of the (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (32 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] appellants that the respondents-writ petitioners were work-charge employees and rather the appellants have stated that the writ petitioners were contractual/temporary employees. Thus, they are governed by the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules and are entitled for all benefits under the same.
24. Thus, the applicability of Rajasthan Service Rules to the writ petitioners is not disputed.
25. Though appellants have taken conflicting stands as to the writ petitioners being engaged on contractual or urgent temporary engagement or ad-hoc basis, the fact is that the writ petitioners performed the duties which were integral to the post of medical officer and their long standing services were under the direct supervision of the Government Department. Not only this, the grant of pay-scales and other allowances which are payable to the post in hand further fortify the stand that the writ petitioners were simply labeled as temporary but they were discharging the regular duties and were working against the sanctioned posts.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors." reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3836 has held that even part-time workers or the ad-hoc workers working as sweepers having been working continuously for over a decade and doing the tasks typically associated with the sanctioned posts are entitled for regularization, and observed as under:-
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (33 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long- term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (34 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:-
Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual,"
even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are performing identical tasks. entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in Irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (35 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularizatin exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. Thus selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with International standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country."
27. In "Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.", the employees who were appointed to manage the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits Fund which was created through the personal contribution of the Special Frontier Force from their salaries claimed the benefits of the replacement scale of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008 as per the recommendation of 6 th Pay Commission. The objection taken by the Union of India was that those employees were not government employees and not appointed by (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (36 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] following any Recruitment Rules and, therefore, the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 were not applicable to them. Another objection raised on behalf of the Union of India was that the services performed by such employees were not statutory in nature because the SSD fund was a voluntary contribution made by the SFF employees and the services rendered by them did not qualify as government service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in "Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.", "Pradeep Kumar Vishwas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors." and "R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India" and held that their employment had the characteristic of regular government employees and the denial of pensionary benefits to them on the basis of their temporary status was unfair and arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
28. Another consideration which is weighing in our mind is that against the same impugned order an appeal filed by the State Government being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.380 of 2016 titled "State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Soni" has already been dismissed, though on the ground of limitation and SLP as well as review in the SLP have been dismissed. We are not inclined to take a different view in the present case. In the present cases, the appointments were against the vacant posts and after undertaking the selection process, though not by the Commission but by a Screening Committee, the same was having all the trappings of regular recruitment, inasmuch as, the writ petitioners were held entitled for regular pay-scales, increments and all other (Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:29836-DB] (37 of 37) [SAW-395/2024] allowances which is clear from the appointment order itself. Thus, the denial of the tenure of service undertaken by the petitioners pursuant to the appointment order dated 28 th November 1996 is not all justified and the learned Single Judge has rightly considered all the aspects of the matter while allowing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners.
28. Consequently, the appeals being bereft of merit are dismissed.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
143-mohit/-
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 10:48:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)