Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vishnu Kumar Chouhan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 September, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:39550]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1948/2018

Dr. Bheru Singh Dudi S/o Shri Bhajan Singh Dudi, Resident Of
Halani Workman Colony, B-9, Baldev Nagar, Barmer.
                                                                    ----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, Barmer.


                                                                 ----Respondents
                              Connected With
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11213/2018
Rajendra Kumar Somani S/o Late Shri Hargovind Somani, Aged
About 52 Years, 5-K-7, Rc Vyas Colony, Bhilwara.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       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, Bhilwara.


                                                                 ----Respondents
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12917/2018
Vishnu Kumar Chouhan S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Chouhan, Aged
About 61 Years, 1-C-19, Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.
                                                                    ----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, Bhilwara.


                                                                 ---Respondents

                     (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 09:45:14 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:39550]                   (2 of 6)                    [CW-1948/2018]




For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv Asst by
                                Mr. Ojas Gupta
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC with
                                Mr. Tanuj Jain


              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

04/09/2025

1. The present petitions have been filed with a prayer for grant

of service benefits keeping into account the entire period of

service of the petitioners that is, with effect from the date of their

initial appointment on temporary / adhoc / urgent basis.

2. The petitioners are the 'Medical Officers' who were initially

appointed on adhoc / temporary / urgent basis in the year 1999,

1993 and 1991 respectively after a regular process of selection.

3. The services of the petitioners stood extended from time to

time by various orders to the said effect.

4. In the year 1994, State Government initiated the recruitment

process for permanent/regular 'Medical Officers'. Petitioners in writ

petition Nos.11213/2018 and 12917/2018 participated in the said

process and after being selected, were appointed as 'Medical

Officers'.

5. Subsequently, advertisement dated 09.05.2008 was issued

by the State Government for regular appointment to the post of

'Rural Medical Officers'. Petitioner in writ petition No.1948/2018

participated in the said 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

[2025:RJ-JD:39550] (3 of 6) [CW-1948/2018]

enacted Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Services Rules, 2008

(hereinafter referred to as Rules of 2008).

6. 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).

7. The petitioners were granted all the service benefits with

effect from the date they were appointed as regular Medical

Officer/Rural Medical Officer in pursuance to advertisement of year

1994/2008. Aggrieved of the same, the present writ petitions have

been filed.

8. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners having

been initially appointed vide a regular recruitment process, may

be on adhoc/temporary basis, the period of their service deserves

to be computed from their initial date of appointment. In case of

Rural Medical Officers, it has been submitted that after the repeal

of Rules of 2008, the petitioners being governed by the Rules of

1963, were entitled for the protection of pay and for the benefit of

continuity of service from their initial date of appointment. Those

been appointed as Medical Officers, already been governed by the

Rules of 1963, deserve the same treatment.

9. Counsel for the petitioners 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:39550] (4 of 6) [CW-1948/2018]

10. 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."

11. 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:39550] (5 of 6) [CW-1948/2018]

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."

12. 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."

13. 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:39550] (6 of 6) [CW-1948/2018]

14. In view of the ratio laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra),

the present writ petitions are allowed.

15. The respondents are directed to compute the services of the

petitioners from the date of their initial appointment on

temporary/adhoc/urgent basis and after the said computation,

grant them the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes.

Appropriate orders be passed within a period of eight weeks from

now.

16. Stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, stand