Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15156) on 2 April, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:15156]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7483/2026

1.       Vinod Kumar S/o Phoola Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
         Ward No.        07, Vpo         Raslana, Tehsil             Bhadra,   District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2.       Jatin Yadav S/o Ram Gopal Yadav, Aged About 38 Years,
         R/o Vpo Bhojasar, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
3.       Bhateri W/o Raj Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo
         Mojana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
4.       Mamta Kumari W/o Nar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
         Vpo    Bhanai,        Tehsil     Bhadra,        District     Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
5.       Krishan Lal Sharma S/o Bhanshi Dhar Sharma, Aged
         About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 06 Rawatsar, District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
6.       Naveen Jhajhria S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 42 Years,
         R/o Vpo Jananna, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
7.       Vinod Kumar Mundel S/o Mangla Ram Mundel, Aged
         About 48 Years, R/o Vpo Mirjawalimer Rawatsar, District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
8.       Pratap Singh S/o Hans Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
         Vpo Bojhala, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
9.       Rajbala W/o Raghuveer, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo
         Jatan, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
10.      Amit Gadh Wal S/o Tara Chand, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
         Vpo Ward No. 09, Rawatsar District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
11.      Rakesh Kumar S/o Lachhiram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
         Vpo         Dulmani      Jatan,         Tehsil       Pillibagha,      District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
12.      Madan Kour Kaswan W/o Krishan, Aged About 45 Years,
         R/o    Vpo      Rampura,          Kunji,      Tehsil       Bhadra,    District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
13.      Krishana Kumari W/o Shyamlal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
         Vpo    Janana,        Tehsil     Bhadra,         District    Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.


                         (Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:11:04 PM)
                        (Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:53:50 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:15156]                         (2 of 6)                       [CW-7483/2026]


14.      Priyanka Kumari D/o Naresh Kumar, Aged About 30 Years,
         R/o Vpo Sagara, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
15.      Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Roshan Lal, Aged About 31
         Years, R/o Ward No. 09 Karanpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
16.      Shiv Prakash S/o Ramswarup, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
         Ward        No     6,     Dhani       6      Hpd      Hardyalpura,    District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
17.      Priksha Kumari W/o Vijender Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
         R/o Vpo Janana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
18.      Ratan Kumar S/o Ram Chander, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
         Vpo Chanani Bari, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
19.      Neelam Rani W/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 17 Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
20.      Manju W/o Sunil Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo
         Bheerani,          Tehsil        Bhadra,           District    Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
21.      Renu Bala W/o Anil Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 24 Shivpura Bas, Tehsil Bhadra, District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
22.      Ritu W/o Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo
         Chobara,           Tehsil       Bhadra,            District    Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
23.      Anita Meghwal W/o Kuldeep, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
         Ward        No.     1    Doltawali,          3T,    District   Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
24.      Dinesh Kumar S/o Ram Niwas, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 32 Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
25.      Divakar S/o Shankar Lal Swami, Aged About 43 Years, R/
         o Ward No. 10, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
26.      Shanker Lal Prajapat S/o Sohanlal, Aged About 45 Years,
         R/o Ward No. 11, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.

                            (Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:11:04 PM)
                           (Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:53:50 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:15156]                    (3 of 6)                         [CW-7483/2026]


27.      Ratanlal S/o Hetram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village
         Gandheli, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
28.      Dimple Chimpa W/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 44 Years,
         R/o Ward No. 24, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan .
29.      Jagat Pal S/o Pokar Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo
         Bhangwa, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
30.      Bhanu Pratap S/o Tula Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 08, 31 M.o.d District Hanumagarh, Rajasthan.
31.      Rajesh Kumari W/o Sunil, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
         Amarpura, Ajitpura, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
32.      Satrupa Devi W/o Krishan Kumar, Aged About 44 Years,
         R/o Near Sarkari School, Malwani, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
33.      Sanjay Choudhary S/o Nandram, Aged About 41 Years, R/
         o Ward No. 08, Village Shoyra Tada, Bhadra District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
34.      Kiran Kumari W/o Vikash Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, R/
         o Vpo Bairasar Bara, District Churu, Rajasthan.
35.      Ratandeep Kour, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 07,
         Near Gurudwara Sahib, Nukera, District Hanumangarh,
         Rajasthan.
36.      Pramjeet Kour W/o Jeetendra Singh, Aged About 45
         Years, R/o Patwari Mohalla, Ward No. 10, Sangria District
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
37.      Jasmeet Kaur, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Star City Super,
         Hanumangarh Jn. District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical
         And    Health    Department,            Government       Of    Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
2.       Director     (Non-Gazzetted),               Medical      And       Health
         Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       Principal Medical Officer, Government District Hospital,
         Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
4.       Principal Medical Officer, Government District Hospital,
         Churu, Rajasthan.


                       (Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:11:04 PM)
                      (Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 08:53:50 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:15156]                     (4 of 6)                        [CW-7483/2026]


5.       The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh
         Rajasthan.
6.       The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Churu Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Tanuj Jain for
                                  Mr. Mukesh Dave.



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

02/04/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

"1. the action of the respondents while not extending the petitioners the benefits and grant of fixation of their salary of selection grades after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of services in the upgraded pay scales while not counting their services from the date of their initial appointment, may kindly be declared per se illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in clear violation of the relevant provisions of law.

2. the respondents be directed to confer the benefits and grant fixation of their salary of Selection Grades after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in the upgraded pay scales counting their services w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary.

3. the respondents be directed to count the services of the petitioners rendered by them as Nurse Gr.II in the same department under the Rules of 1965 for all purposes including pension, seniority, gratuity, commutation of leave etc. and to confer them all the benefits accruing from the past services rendered by them in the department of Medical and Health as Medical Officer under the Rules of 1965. xxxxxx"

2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the

controversy involved is squarely covered by the judgment passed

by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Soni: SBSAW

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:11:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15156] (5 of 6) [CW-7483/2026]

No.380/2016 and it is apprised to this court that an SLP as well

as review in the SLP against the order above have been dismissed.

Observing all those things in a judgment rendered in a batch of

Special Appeal Writs led by D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.532/2016

(The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal &

Ors.), relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.; (2024) SCC ONLINE SC

3836, directed the respondents to compute the services of the

petitioners from the date of their initial temporary/ad-hoc/urgent

appointment and grant continuity of service for all purposes.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the State that in

the case of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra), a Selection Committee had

been constituted for the purpose of recruitment of the petitioners

therein, whereas in the present case, the aspirants were merely

allowed through the advertisement to drop the irrelevant papers in

the boxes installed, does not carry much substance. This Court is

of the view that in the case of petitioners also, the entire selection

process was followed up in accordance with the procedure

established by law. The issue involved in this case has adequately

been answered and thus the petitioners too deserve to get the

same treatment as has been given in the case of Dr. Paritosh

Ujjwal (supra). Hence, I am of the view that the controversy

involved in the case referred supra and the case in hand is the

same and there are no distinguishable features so as to dis entitle

the petitioners to get the same benefit as has been given to the

petitioners in the case of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra) in the same

terms and conditions and fashion.

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:11:04 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15156] (6 of 6) [CW-7483/2026]

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

the present writ petition is allowed.

5. The respondents are directed to verify the documents of

each petitioner and compute the services of the petitioner from

the date of their initial appointment on temporary/ad-hoc/urgent

basis. Upon such verification, if the respondents are satisfied

about the genuineness of the documents and the eligibility of the

petitioners, the benefit of continuity of services for all purposes

shall be granted to them. Appropriate orders be passed within a

period of eight weeks from now.