Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:40280) on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:40280]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17504/2018
Vishnu Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About
57 Years, R/o A-603, Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----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
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17588/2018
Chandra Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 50 Years, Resident Of 7-F-22, R.c. Vyas Colony,
Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Thorugh 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
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Assisted
by Mr. Ojas Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain for
Mr. Mukesh Dave
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 12:06:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40280] (2 of 5) [CW-17504/2018]
10/09/2025
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 years
1987/1993 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 recruitment
processes for permanent/regular 'Medical Officers'. Petitioners
participated in the said process and after being selected, were
appointed as 'Medical Officers'.
5. The petitioners were granted all the service benefits with
effect from the date they were appointed as regular Medical
Officer in pursuance to advertisement of year 1994. Aggrieved of
the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.
6. 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.
7. It has been submitted that the petitioners being governed by
the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rules 1963, are
entitled for the protection of pay and for the benefit of continuity
of service from their initial date of appointment.
8. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue rests
covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 12:06:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40280] (3 of 5) [CW-17504/2018]
Rajasthan vs. Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal; D. B. Spl. Appl. Writ
No.532/2016 and other connected special appeals (decided on
09.07.2025).
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
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 12:06:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40280] (4 of 5) [CW-17504/2018]
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 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."
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 12:06:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40280] (5 of 5) [CW-17504/2018]
12. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the
position of law as laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra).
13. In view of the ratio laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra),
the present writ petitions are allowed.
14. 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.
15. Stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
106,107-DhananjayS/-
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 12:06:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
