Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr.Moti Lal Soni vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 3 September, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:39164]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12/2018
Dr. Moti Lal Soni S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Soni, Resident Of Near
Arjun Club, Sardar Sahar, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary To The
Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Department, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ratangarh, District
Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Assisted
by Mr. Ojas Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC with
Mr. Tanuj Jain
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
03/09/2025
1. The present petition has been filed with a prayer for grant of
service benefits keeping into account the entire period of service
of the petitioner that is, with effect from the date of his initial
appointment on temporary basis.
2. The petitioner is the 'Medical Officer' who was initially
appointed on temporary basis in the year 1999 after a regular
process of selection.
3. The services of the petitioner stood extended from time to
time by various orders to the said effect.
4. Thereafter, advertisement dated 09.05.2008 was issued by
the State Government for regular appointment to the post of
'Rural Medical Officers'. Petitioner participated in the said
[2025:RJ-JD:39164] (2 of 5) [CW-12/2018]
recruitment process and after being selected, was appointed as
'Rural Medical Officer'. The services of the said Rural Medical
Officers were to be governed by the newly enacted Rajasthan
Rural Medical and Health Services Rules, 2008 (hereinafter
referred to as Rules of 2008).
5. Subsequently, the Rules of 2008 were repealed vide
notification dated 03.01.2012 and as per the said notification, all
the appointments, orders and any act done under the Rules of
2008 were/was to be deemed to have been passed/done in terms
of the provisions of Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rules,
1963 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1963).
6. The petitioner was granted all the service benefits with effect
from the date he was appointed as regular Rural Medical Officer in
pursuance to advertisement of year 2008. Aggrieved of the same,
the present writ petition has been filed.
7. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner having been
initially appointed vide a regular recruitment process, may be on
adhoc/temporary basis, the period of his service deserves to be
computed from his initial date of appointment. It has been
submitted that after the repeal of Rules of 2008, the petitioner
being governed by the Rules of 1963, was entitled for the
protection of pay and for the benefit of continuity of service from
his initial date of appointment.
8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue rests
covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of
Rajasthan vs. Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal; D. B. Spl. Appl. Writ
No.532/2016 and other connected special appeals (decided on
09.07.2025).
[2025:RJ-JD:39164] (3 of 5) [CW-12/2018]
9. In Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra), the Division Bench while
dealing with akin facts, while relying upon the Apex Court
judgment in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.;
(2024) SCC ONLINE SC 3836, observed as under:-
"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."
10. Therein, the Division Bench concluded as under:-
"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
[2025:RJ-JD:39164] (4 of 5) [CW-12/2018]
regular recruitment, inasmuch as, the writ
petitioners were held entitled for regular pay-
scales, increments and all other 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 28th 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."
11. The Division Bench vide the above order, affirmed the
following order of the learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.9582/2008; Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 12.02.2014):
"7. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed with a
direction to the State Government to grant the benefit of
continuity of service to the petitioners and the period of
service rendered earlier, may be reckoned from the initial
date of appointment for all purposes since the new 2008
Rules now stand repealed w.e.f. 03.01.2012 and in the
saving clause of the said Notification, it is clearly provided
that the appointments, orders and anything done under the
said Rules of 2008 shall be deemed to have been made in
the provisions of Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules,
1963.
8. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed with
aforesaid observations and directions. No costs. A copy of
the order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith."
12. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the
position of law as laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra).
[2025:RJ-JD:39164] (5 of 5) [CW-12/2018]
13. In view of the ratio laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra),
the present writ petition is allowed.
14. The respondents are directed to compute the services of the
petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on temporary
basis and after the said computation, grant him the benefit of
continuity of service for all purposes. Appropriate orders be
passed within a period of eight weeks from now.
15. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
110-DhananjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
