[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Pal Choudhary And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:6054]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4156/2018
1. Surendra Pal Choudhary S/o Shri Narayan Ram, Resident
Of 59, Resident Of Vishwakarma Nagar- Ii, Bhadwasia,
Jodhpur.
2. Pratibha Bissa W/o Suresh Prakash Bissa, Resident Of Om
Bhawan, Baniyabara, Inside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.
3. Mehraj Ansari W/o Shri Naved Ali Ansari, Resident Of 63,
Shanti Priya Nagar, Behind 10 Shop, Chopasni Road,
Jodhpur.
4. Mannju Rani W/o Pradeep Kumar, Resident Of Nagori Bera
Mandore, Behind Ramdev Temple, Jodhpur.
5. Prerna W/o Shri Navneet Arora, Resident Of 320, Majisa
Nohara Kabutro Ka Chowk, Jodhpur.
6. Anshu Pareek W/o Shri Amit Pareek, Resident Of 158,
Apna Nagar, Opp Chopasni Filter House, Funworld,
Jodhpur.
7. Anju Suthar W/o Shri Sanjay Jangid, Resident Of 35-C,
Air Port Road, Sher Vilas Colony, Jodhpur.
8. Kiran Solanki D/o Shri Mohan Lal Solanki, Plot No. 75,
Rekha Sadan, Gali No. 5, Subhash Basti, Bhagat Ki Kothi,
Jodhpur.
9. Shamini W/o Shri Anshiv Kumar, Resident Of H.no. 248,
249, Rameshwar Nagar, Sector-D, Basni First Phase,
Jodhpur.
10. Sunita Kumari W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Lakhara, Resident
Of 58, Bangali Quarter, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.
11. Sarla W/o Shri Bhagirath Dudi, Resident Of Dudiyo Ki
Dhani, Ramdawas Khurd, Ramrawas Kallan, Jodhpur.
12. Vimla W/o Shri Ram Kishore Benda, Resident Of Saran
Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Medical
And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:47:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6054] (2 of 6) [CW-4156/2018]
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ojas Gupta for
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma for
Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
03/02/2026
1. Application (No.01/2025) filed by counsel for the petitioners
for taking the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner
No.1 i.e. Surendra Pal Choudhary s/o Shri Narayan Ram, is
allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
2. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners have
made the following prayers:-
"xxxxxxxxx
i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, 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
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents
be directed to count the services of the petitioners rendered by
them as Nurse Gr.ll 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.
xxxxxxxxxx"
3. Indisputably, the petitioners' recruitment process got
commenced with the advertisement dated 31.07.2003 (in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 4670/2018) & the advertisement dated
27.02.1996 (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4675/2018) issued by
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6054] (3 of 6) [CW-4156/2018]
the respondent department. The controversy and principal issue
involved in this case has already been dealt with by a Division
Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No.380/2016 titled as State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dr.
Dinesh Kumar Soni 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.), Hon'ble the Division Bench while
considering the nature of appointment, existence of cadre, post
upon which appointment was made and upon making observance
on following up the entire procedure, i.e., inviting of applications
etc., dismissed the appeals filed by the State. 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 has taken conflicting stands as to the
writ petitioner being engaged on contractual or urgent
temporary engagement or ad-hoc basis, the fact is that the
writ petitioner performed the duties which was integral to the
post of medical officer and their long standing services was
under the direct supervision of the Government Department.
Not only this, the grant of pay-scales and other allowances
which is payable to the post in hand further fortify the stand
that the writ petitioner was simply labeled as temporary but
they was discharging the regular duties and was working
against the sanctioned posts."
Therein, the Division Bench concluded as under:-
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6054] (4 of 6) [CW-4156/2018]
"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 has
been dismissed. We is not inclined to take a different view in
the present case. In the present cases, the appointments
was 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 regular recruitment, inasmuch as, the writ
petitioner was 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 petitioner 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 petition
filed by the petitioner."
4. 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 petition is allowed with a
direction to the State Government to grant the benefit of
continuity of service to the petitioner 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 has been made in the provisions
of Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid
observations and directions. No costs. A copy of the order be
sent to the concerned parties forthwith."
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6054] (5 of 6) [CW-4156/2018]
5. 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 their
relevant papers in the boxes installed, does not carry much
substance. I am 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.
6. Counsel representing the respondents is also not in a
position to refute the fact that the issue involved in the present
writ petition has adequately been answered by the learned Single
Judge in the case of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra).
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions and applying the ratio
laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra), the present writ petition
is allowed.
8. The respondents are directed to compute the services of the
petitioner from the date of their initial appointment on temporary/
adhoc/urgent basis and after the said computation, grant them
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6054] (6 of 6) [CW-4156/2018]
the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes. Appropriate
orders be passed within a period of eight weeks from now.
9. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
6-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
