Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Gaurav Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 March, 2025
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 285/2021
1. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Ram Vilas Kumawat,
Aged About 32 Years, C/o 1St Grade Vterinay Hospital,
Devgarh, District- Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Mehrra S/o Shri Sita Ram, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Nehara Krishi Farm, Gudha Bairsal, Tehsil-
Mphamabad, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Dhakar S/o Shri Shambhu Lal Dhaker,
Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village- Kalyanpura, Tehsil-
Bijolain, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
4. Dr. Vaibhav Kumar S/o Shri Gajendra Pal Singh, Aged
About 31 Years, C/o Tmvu-Iii, Sujangarh, District
Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jodhpur Rajasthan.
4. Dr. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Rajan Singh, C/o Veterinary
Hospital, Devariya, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan (Petitioner
No. 3).
5. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Mali S/o Shri Bhagwan Lal Mali, R/o
Vpo Hurda, Tehsil Hurda, District- Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
(Petitioner No. 5)
6. Dr. Arif Ansar S/o Shri Jamil Ahmed, R/o Bunkar Colony,
Agarbatti Nana, Mangrol, Baran, District Kota, Rajasthan.
(Petitioner No. 7).
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 198/2021
1. Dr.Vikram Bhati S/o Shri Radha Kishan Bhati, Aged About
33 Years, B/c Nai, R/o Raj Singh Nagar, Tehsil And District
Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Amit Kumar Kaswan S/o Shri Karan Singh Kaswan,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near New Bus Stand Ward No.
9, Karan Chowk, Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan
3. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav,
Aged About 33 Years, B/c Yadav, R/o 110, Anand Vihar,
Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Dr. Mohd. Waseem Khan Zai S/o Shri Mohd. Sharif Zai,
Aged About 30 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o 71, J.k. Nagar, Pal
Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Dr. Ranjeet Kumar Verma S/o Shri Shiv Prasad, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Vill. And Post Dariyapur, Post
Kachhiyanwan District Nalanda (Bihar)
6. Dr. Kirty Sharma D/o Shri Dwarka Prasad, Aged About 31
(Downloaded on 19/03/2025 at 09:42:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (2 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
Years, R/o H.no. 402, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 290/2021
Dr. Ashish Tanwar S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Tanwar, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Balasar House, Dhawariyon Ka Bas, Old Ginnani
Bikaner, Rajasthan (Hall Veterinary Officer, At Govt. Veterinary
Hospital Sawatsar Dungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance (Gr.-I)
Government Of Rajasthan, State Secretariat Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Bikaner Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 12/2022
1. Dr. Mohd. Waseem Khan Zai S/o Mohd. Sharif Zai, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o 71 Jk Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
2. Ramakant Soni S/o Shri Chothmal Soni,, Aged About 31
Years, R/o New Colony Near Sarla Birla Kalyan Mandap
Saikripa Society Kuchaman City, Rajasthan.
3. Sureshchand Yadav S/o Shri Babulal Yadav,, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Village And Post- Achrol, Tehsil Amer,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Dr. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village And Post- Bhagera, Tehsil Neem Ka
Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
5. Vijay Singh S/o Shri Devi Lal Godara,, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Bar Wali, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
6. Dr. Surender Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad,, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Village Post- Dhikli Jatan, Tehsil Nohar,
District Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 19/03/2025 at 09:42:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (3 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
7. Dr. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Bheem Sain,, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Post Ujj, Tehsil Padampur, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
8. Dr. Sarvesh Kumar S/o Prahlad Ram,, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vpo Ghanau Teh. Sadalpur, District Churu, Raj.
9. Dr. Heeralal S/o Shri Mohanlal,, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village 45F, Post Baringa, Tehsil Srikaranpur, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
10. Dr. Vishnu Parashar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kajori Ka Nagla Ward No. 4,
Kherli, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
11. Dr. Ramesh Beniwal S/o Shri Ran Singh,, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Ward No. 30, Jhorarpura Bass Bhadra, Tehsil
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
12. Dr. Dharam Singh S/o Shri Jhabar Singh Dhayal,, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Dhani- Mansawali, Village Post
Kotary Dhayalan, Via Ringus, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
13. Dr. Lokendra S/o Shri Nathu Ram,, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Tangla, Post- Chawta Khurd, Tehsil Jayal,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 13/2022
1. Dr. Gaurav Sharma S/o Shri Gautam Sharma, Aged About
41 Years, R/o Bhanot Bhawan, Sabzi Bazar, Sri-
Ganganagar. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary
Hospital Daulatpura, Sri-Ganganagar, Rajasthan).
2. Dr. Jitendra Singh Gaur S/o Shri Mohan Singh Gaur, Aged
About 35 Years, By Caste Gaur, R/o Indira Colony,
Nainwan Road, Gandhi Gram Road, Bundi (Raj.). At
Present Posted At Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Polyclinic,
Bundi, Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohar Singh, Aged About 33
Years, By Caste Jat, R/o V/p Kalotra Via Babai Teh. Khetri
District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). At Present Posted Veterinary
Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Madhogarh, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4. Dr. Pawan Kumar Saharan S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Saharan,
Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Vpo Bhuwari Teh.
Rajgarh District Churu (Raj.) At Present Veterinary Officer,
District Mobile Veterinary Unit Churu-I, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
5. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay Yadav,
Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Yadav, R/o Nandiwali
(Downloaded on 19/03/2025 at 09:42:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (4 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
Dhani, W. No. 4 Kacholiya Chomu, Jaipur (Raj.) At Present
Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Munged, District
Dungarpur.
6. Dr. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Lal Yadav, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Dhani Baiji-Wali, Village-Anantpura, Post-
Divrala Via Ajitgarh, Tehsil-Shri Madhopur, District-Sikar,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Veterinary Hospital
Palari, Tehsil-Viratnagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan).
7. Dr. Imtiyaj Khan S/o Shri Manwar Khan, Aged About 34
Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Village Aslu, Post Lakhsu
District Churu (Raj.). At Present Veterinary Officer,
Veterinary Hospital, Bharmsi, District Churu (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Jaipur, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Addl. Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 15/2022
1. Dr. Kailash Chandra Dagar S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About
32 Years, Caste- Jat, R/o Village And Post- Chithwari,
Tehsil- Chomu, District- Jaipur, (Hall Veterinary Officer, At
Govt. Veterinary Hospital Antela, Jaipur, Rajasthan).
2. Dr. Mohit Gupta S/o Nanak Chand Gupta, Aged About 31
Years, R/o H. No. B-239, Budhvihar, Alwar. (Hall
Veterinary Officer, At Veterinary Mobile Unit, Rajgarh,
Alwar, Rajasthan).
3. Dr. Vijay Singh S/o Shri Har Prasad Solanki, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Village- Gupal-Ka-Nagla, Tehsil- Bharatpur,
(Hall Veterinary Officer, At Veterinary Mobile Unit, Nadbai,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 19/2022
(Downloaded on 19/03/2025 at 09:42:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (5 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
1. Chandra Prakash Saini S/o Shri Matadeen Saini, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Behind Iti College, Sardar Patel
Nagar, Bikaner. Currently Posted At Government
Veterinary Hospital, Ismailpur, Alwar.
2. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma S/o Narendra Kumar
Sharma,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Nayawas, Post
Brahmbad, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Currently
Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital, Naglatula,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Gopal Swami S/o Puran Mal Swami,, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Bheslana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.
Currently Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital,
Datil, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Mubin Khan S/o Jormal Khan,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Shekhpur, Post Bahadurpur, Tehsil Kishangarhbas,
Alwar. Currently Posted At Government Veterinary
Hospital, Mubarikpur, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance
Department, Jaipur, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Additional Director, Department Of Animal
Husbandry, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Secretary.
8. Vikram Singh Yadav S/o Shri Mohar Singh Yadav,, Aged
About 33 Years, Jaitpur, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali,
Currently Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital,
Ratanpura, Alwar, Rajasthan.
9. Bajrang Lal Sharma S/o Gopal Ram Sharma, Aged About
34 Years, 46, Tirupati Nagar, Banar Road, Jodhpur.
Currently Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital,
Haldina Alwar, Rajasthan.
10. Ratan Singh S/o Nand Ram,, Aged About 34 Years,
Jonaicha Kala, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar. Currently
Posted At Government Veterinary Hospitpal, Majara,
Neemrana, Rajasthan.
11. Lalit Kumar Gaur S/o Shiv Lahari Gaur,, Garh Himmat
Singh, Dausa. Currently Posted At Government Veterinary
Hospital, Talchiri, Dausa.
12. Tirupati Sharma S/o Narendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, 36, Gulab Nagar, Railway Station,
Sanganer, Jaipur. Currently Posted At Government
(Downloaded on 19/03/2025 at 09:42:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (6 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
Veterinary Hospital, Biiwa, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 73/2022
1. Dr. Rajendra Prasad S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 37
Years, Vill. And Post Muklawa, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary
Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Raisingh Nagar,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan).
2. Mahendra Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vill And Post
Bhagega, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
(Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Vet. Hospital, Abhawas,
Sri Madhopur, District Sikar).
3. Abdul Kadir Khan S/o Abdul Vahid Khan, Aged About 31
Years, Caste Muslim, R/o Near Laddha Hospital
Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh. (Hall Veterinary Officer
At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Suhagpura, District
Pratapgarh).
4. Shadab Ahmed Khan S/o Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Aged About
38 Years, Caste Muslim, R/o 23/195, Mohammadia
Colony, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara. (Hall Veterinary Officer
At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Danthal, District Bhilwara).
5. Praveen Kumar S/o Rajvir Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
Faujawali Road, Ramnagar, Kotputali, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital
Bhonkar Kot-Kasim, District Alwar, Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Personnel And Training
(Gr.-Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, State Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Director, Department Of Animal
Husbandry, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 74/2022
1. Dr. Shailendra Gupta S/o Shri Ramawatar Gupta, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Sangam Bhawan Parisar, Baswa
Road, Bandi Kui, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Hall
Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Sakat,
District Alwar).
2. Dr. Sardar Singh Jat S/o Shri Geegaram, Aged About 33
Years, Dhani Nabori Kalyanpura, Post Jairampur, Tehsil Sri
Madhopur, District Sikar. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt.
Veterinary Hospital, Bhojpur Khandekar, District Sikar).
3. Dr. Mohd Abdul Khalid S/o Shri Abdul Rahoof Khan, Aged
About 41 Years, C-100, Waqf Nagar, Dadabari, Kota. (Hall
Veterinary Officer, At District Mobile Unit, Jhalawar,
Rajasthan).
(Downloaded on 19/03/2025 at 09:42:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (7 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
4. Dr. Amit Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Yadav,
Aged About 34 Years, P. No. 64 Salasar Vatika, 11Th
Road, Niwaru Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary
Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Bhadwa, Jaipur,
Rajasthan).
5. Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Chhote Lal Singh, Aged About 42
Years, Station Road, Bhinay, Tehsil Bhinay, District Ajmer,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary
Hospital Padanga District Ajmer).
6. Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Sita Ram Saini, Aged About
39 Years, Ward No. 1, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, District Mobile Unit,
Laxmangarh, District Sikar).
7. Manoj Nen S/o Shri Dev Karan Nen, Aged About 33 Years,
V.p.o. Sirsali, District Churu. (Hall Veterinary Officer, At
Veterinary Hospital Lohsana, District Churu).
8. Idris Khan S/o Shri Nawab Ali, Aged About 38 Years,
Ward No. 44 Mohalla Idgar, District- Churu, Rajasthan.
(Hall Veterinary Officer, At Veterinary Polyclinic, Churu).
9. Gajraj Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Sumer Singh, Aged
About 37 Years, Vpo Nevari, District Jhunjhunu. (Hall
Veterinary Officer, At Veterinary Hospital Pachalangi,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And
Training (Gr. Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, State
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
4. The Additional Director, Department Of Animal
Husbandry, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Secretary.
6. Dinesh Choudhary S/o Shri Babu Lal Choudhary, Aged
About 36 Years, Village Kharadi, Tehsil Jaitaran, District
Pali. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital,
Ransigaon, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan).
7. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Man Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
H. No. C-78, Sainik Nagar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Hall
Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital,
Wahidpura, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan).
8. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Shishupal Singh, Aged About 30
Years, Village And Post Dabri, Baloda, Tehsil Navalgarh,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At
Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Devgaon Nua, District
Jhunjhunu).
9. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Prahalad Singh, Aged About 31
Years, Vill. And Post Patusari District Jhunjhunu,
(Downloaded on 19/03/2025 at 09:42:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (8 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary
Hospital, Kari, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu).
10. Maninder Singh S/o Shri Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About
31 Years, Village Dunwas, Post Mundawar, District Alwar.
(Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Poly Clinic,
Alwar, Rajasthan).
11. Manoj Kumar Mahla S/o Shri Deendayal Mahla, Aged
About 34 Years, Village Alafsar, Post Hirna, Tehsil
Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer
At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Beswa, District Sikar).
12. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Asoo Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 32 Years, H. No. 402, Kailashpuri, Bikaner,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary
Hospital, Bhadaria, District Jaisalmer).
13. Dr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta,
Aged About 42 Years, Ward No. 9, Ganga Mandir Nagar,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt.
District Mobile Unit, Bharatpur, Rajasthan).
14. Satveer Singh S/o Shri Manfool Ram, Aged About 35
Years, Vill. And Post Lalana Baas Utradha, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt.
Veterinary Hospital, Jasana, District Hanumangarh).
15. Rinku Lal Gupta S/o Shri Chhail Bihari Gupta, Aged About
37 Years, Behind Agarwal Dharmsala, Karoli, Rajasthan.
(Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Hospital, Madhopur,
Jaipur, Rajasthan).
16. Anil Kumar Soni S/o Shri Manohar Lal Soni, Aged About
33 Years, Village And Post Narhar, Tehsil Chirawa, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt.
District Mobile Unit No. 3, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan).
17. Shivraj Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, D-150 Indra Colony, Newai, District Tonk,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. District Mobile
Unit-I, Newai, District Tonk, Rajasthan).
18. Rajesh Kumar Kasera S/o Shri Balmukund Kasera, Aged
About 34 Years, E-4-A Old Jawahar Nagar, Kota. (Hall
District Mobile Unit, Pipalda, Kota).
19. Utkarsh S/o Shri Randhir Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
Village And Post Dhadhoi Kalan, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt.
Veterinary Hospital Ghardana, District Jhunjhunu).
20. Jyoti Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 33 Years, Sodiya Mohalla, Baswa, Tehsil
Lalsoth, District Dausa. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt.
Veterinary Hospital Didwana, Lalsoth, District Dausa,
Rajasthan).
21. Kamal Kishore S/o Shri Suresh Chandra, Aged About 35
Years, Govt. Servant Colony, I.o.c. Road, Mod Bhatta,
District Pali, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt.
Veterinary Hospital Raipur, District Pali).
22. Umakant Tyagi S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 35
Years, Village And Post Doobra, Tehsil And District
(Downloaded on 19/03/2025 at 09:42:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (9 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
Dholpur, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, District
Mobile Unit, Badi, District Dholpur).
23. Ganpat Ram Saini S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Saini, Aged
About 34 Years, Ward No. 1, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, District Mobile Unit,
Laxmangarh, District Sikar).
24. Hansram Meena S/o Bati Lal Meena, Aged About 36
Years, Dharadi, District Karoli, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary
Officer At Veterinary Hospital Sodala Bandi Kui, District
Dausa, Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Satya Prakash Sharma
Mr. Dalpat Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, AAG
Dr. Praveen Khandelwal
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki
Mr. Pawan Bharti
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Judgment
17/03/2025
Heard.
2. This order shall govern disposal of the writ appeals as well as
review petitions which have been heard analogously.
3. We shall first decide all the review petitions, as the disposal
of the writ appeals would be governed by the order under review.
4. These review petitions arise out of common order dated
17.11.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in appeals
preferred against the common order/singular order passed by the
learned Single Judge in writ petitions filed by different writ
petitioners, which was partly allowed restricting the relief only to
the extent of grant of minimum of the pay scale of the post on
which the appellants were working without granting any
allowances and also without granting the benefit from the date of
the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh [(2016) AIR (SC) 5176].
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (10 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
5. The writ petitions, as filed by the review petitioners herein,
claimed regularization on the post of Veterinary Officer. For brevity
and convenience, we shall refer to the pleadings in the case of Dr.
Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.16913/2019] decided on 20.01.2020
which was the first order passed by the learned Single Judge and
on the basis of which similar orders in other cases were also
passed.
6. The writ petition was filed seeking directions for
regularization of services of the petitioners on permanent basis on
the post of Veterinary Officer and also for grant of benefit of
regular pay scale, with all admissible service benefits at par with
regular employees. Petitioners also prayed for grant of relief on
the basis of order passed in the case of Dr. Abhijit Sutradhar &
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 1091/2000 decided on 18.04.2002]. Prayer was
made for issuance of direction to the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission to recommend names of the petitioners for regular
appointment on the post of Veterinary Officers. As an alternative,
it was also prayed that the respondents be directed to absorb the
services of the writ petitioners against regular posts on the basis
of selection.
7. Relief sought in the writ petition was opposed by the
respondent-State by filing reply.
8. Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 20.01.2020, partly
allowed the writ petition in the manner and to the extent that the
petitioners were held entitled to atleast minimum of the pay scale
which the regularly selected Veterinary Officers were getting,
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (11 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
though without any allowances. Claim of the writ petitioners that
they were entitled to the minimum of the pay scale from the date
of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit
Singh (supra), seeking parity with Smt. Uji Devi Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 883/2015]
decided on 17.04.2018 and the order passed in her case by this
Court was, however, rejected.
9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge
to the extent it disallowed claim other than the minimum of the
pay scale, writ appeals were filed which came to be eventually
dismissed vide order under review. Thereafter, present review
petitions have been filed.
10. Learned counsel for the review applicants (appellants in
appeal and the writ petitioners) would argue that an apparent
error has been committed in denying the benefit of minimum of
the pay scale from the date of the order passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh(supra). He would
submit that even though there were no distinguishable feature as
compared to the case of Smt. Uji Devi(supra), learned Single
Judge as well as this Court both committed an apparent error of
law and fact in denying the benefit of minimum of the pay scale
from the date of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Jagjit Singh(supra).
Next submission is that claim of Dearness Allowance was
also made out not only on the basis of the order passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh(supra) but also
independently thereof and in addition to on the basis of the claim
based on parity with Dr. Abhijit Sutradhar & Ors. and another set
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (12 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
of Veterinary Officers, who were also selected as temporary
Veterinary Officers. All these aspects where not taken into
consideration and, therefore, present is an appropriate case for
grant of review and allowing all the claims of the writ petitioners,
as claimed in the writ petition.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that whatever submissions were advanced before the Court
and the grounds raised in the writ petitions as well as in the
appeals, were minutely considered by this Court and decided. He
would further submit that the claim of parity is being raised for the
first time during the course of arguments in these review petitions
and therefore, the same deserves to be rejected at the threshold.
Even otherwise, on merits, it is contended, case of parity is not
made out as a set of employees who were selected at different
point of time and the review applicants were appointed only on
fixed pay whereas, Dr. Abhijit Sutradhar & Ors., with whom parity
was claimed were appointed long back on pay scale.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records of the case.
13. In the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, writ petitioners
claimed for regularization and regular pay scale, which was not
allowed by the learned Single Judge nor by this Court. Review
applicants are not aggrieved with that finding but their case is that
in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jagjit Singh(supra), and on parity with Smt. Uji Devi(supra), in
whose favour an order was passed for grant of minimum pay scale
from the date of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jagjit Singh(supra), the applicants were also entitled to grant of
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (13 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
minimum of pay scale from the date of the order passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh(supra).
This aspect was considered not only by the learned Single
Judge but also by the Division Bench. There is a concurrent finding
on this aspect that on the date when the order was passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh(supra), a
petition filed by Smt. Uji Devi was already pending and, therefore,
on those factual background, benefit was granted to Smt. Uji Devi
on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Jagjit Singh(supra), from the date of the order passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court. This finding recorded by the Division
Bench earlier cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face
of record. A clear view has been taken by this Court taking into
consideration that Smt. Uji Devi had filed petition which was
pending on the date when the judgment was rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh(supra). However, as far
as the present petitioners are concerned, they all filed petitions
subsequent to that. Taking note of this distinguishable feature,
grant of minimum pay scale has been restricted and not granted
from the date of of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Jagjit Singh(supra). Therefore, on this ground, no case
for review is made out.
14. Another ground seeking review is that in view of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit
Singh(supra), applicants are entitled to Dearness Allowance also
on the minimum of the pay scale. Though learned counsel for the
applicants strenuously urged before us by taking us through the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (14 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
Singh(supra), we do not find that any such relief was granted by
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The two penultimate concluding
paragraphs in the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, are
reproduced hereinbelow:
"56. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:-
"Article 7
The States Parties to the present Covenant
recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of
just and favourable conditions of work which ensure,
in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a
minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of
equal value without distinction of any kind, in
particular women being guaranteed conditions of
work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with
equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families
in accordance with the provisions of the present
Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted
in his employment to an appropriate higher level,
subject to no considerations other than those of
seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of
working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as
well as remuneration for public holidays."
India is a signatory to the above covenant, having
ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape
from the above obligation, in view of different
provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and
in view of the law declared by this Court under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle
of 'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear and
unambiguous right and is vested in every employee
- whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (15 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
57. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference
to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal
work', in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage
employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on
casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole
factor that requires our determination is, whether the
concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering
similar duties and responsibilities, as were being
discharged by regular employees, holding the
same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the
application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay
for equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 42 above.
However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is
concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual
position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by
the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that
all the temporary employees in the present bunch of
appeals, were appointed against posts which were also
available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also
accepted, that during the course of their employment, the
concerned temporary employees were being randomly
deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at
some point in time, were assigned to regular employees.
Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts,
were also posted to discharge the same work, which was
assigned to temporary employees, from time to time.
There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties
and responsibilities discharged by the temporary
employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as
were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the
case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did
not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment
on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the
State, that any of the temporary employees would not be
entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized
by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt,
that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be
applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as
to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the
minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged
Government employees, holding the same post.
58. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing
paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the
concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of
cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of
the pay-scale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-
scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same
post."
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (16 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
15. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court nowhere grants the
benefit of Dearness Allowance. The submission of learned counsel
for the applicants that the order of the Supreme Court is required
to be considered in light of the observations which have been
made in paragraph 42 thereof, does not make out a case of error
apparent on the face of record and on this basis, no review can be
granted. The prayer in this regard is, therefore, rejected.
16. The last submission is based on the ground of parity.
17. We find that though specific ground was taken in the writ
petition seeking parity with the case of Dr. Abhijit Sutradhar &
Ors., this aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge.
While filing writ appeal, in the memo of appeal, specific ground
was taken that though this point was strongly urged, the same
was not taken into consideration. We further find that in the
review petition before us, it has been stated that this point was
also urged in appeal but has not been duly considered.
18. The issue of parity is essentially an issue of fact. Learned
counsel for the respondents rightly pointed out that the two sets
of employees cannot be equated. The appointments of Dr. Abhijit
Sutradhar & Ors. were made long before and they were appointed
in a pay scale, whereas, the applicants were appointed on fixed
pay. That by itself is sufficient to distinguish both the cases and
disentitles the appellants to grant of Dearness Allowance because
they were not appointed on any pay scale but on a fixed pay.
19. The prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants that
the appellants may be allowed to withdraw and file fresh petition
cannot be allowed at this stage and the same is rejected because
we have considered the matter on its own merits, at length.
[2025:RJ-JD:14192-DB] (17 of 17) [SAW-285/2021]
20. Having considered as above, we do not find any case for
grant of review and all the review petitions are accordingly
dismissed.
21. In view of the above consideration, S.A.W. Nos. 285/2021,
198/2021 and 290/2021 are also dismissed.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
37-45-divyaP/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
