The State Of Rajasthan vs Yudhveer Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:29836-Db) on 9 July, 2025

0
1

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

The State Of Rajasthan vs Yudhveer Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:29836-Db) 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 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 01/08/2025 at 09:53:07 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here