BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur

Dr. Rahul Mittal son of Shri Ravinder Kumar Mittal, aged about 35 years, resident of 329, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur. Dr. Balveer Singh Gurjar Son of Shri Ram Khiladi, aged about 37 Years, resident of VPO Ralavata, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. Dr. Suresh Kumar son of Shri Prabhati Lal, aged about 36 Years, resident of House no.7, Yadav Nagar, Near Tizara Road, Railway Bridge, Alwar. Dr. Dinesh Chand Gupta son of Shri Babulal Gupta, aged about 38 years, resident of Ward No.13, Chuli Gate, Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur. Dr. Narendra Kajla son of Shri Sher Singh Kajla, aged about 38 Years, resident of VPO Dhindhwa Bichla, via Kajra, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. Dr. Suman Kajla wife of Dr. Narender Kajla, resident of VPO Dhindhwa Bichla, via Kajra, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. Dr. Surendra Yadav son of Shri Seduram Yadav, aged about 33 Years, resident of VPO Amarpura, Post Nathwala, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur. Dr. Vishal Singh son of Shri Ganpat Singh, aged about 37 years, resident of 510, Behind Dak Bunglow, Anand Nagar, Sikar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by Mr. Yash Joshi & Mr. Sankalp Vijay, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote, Advocate along with Mr. Ashvini Raj Tanwar, Advocate & Mr. Dikshant Jain, Advocate [2025:RJ-JP:18444-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-973/2021] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA 01/05/2025 Order Aggrieved by the order dated 7th July 2020 by which the writ petition filed by the respondents has been allowed, the State of Rajasthan has filed this Special Appeal.

2. In the present proceeding, the writ Court passed the order dated 7th July 2020 on the basis of a previous decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench in “Dr. Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajastan & Ors.” (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9583/2008).

3. The writ Court allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17230/2015 by observing thus: “The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents may be directed to include the petitioners for the purpose of grant of promotion under DACP scheme after completion of six years service in the Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-. That by appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may be directed to grant the benefit promotion under DACP scheme after completion of six years service with effect from 01.04.2014. That further the Hon’ble court may kindly quash and set aside the order of rejection of representation dated 11.06.2015. The respondents may further be directed to grant seniority to the petitioners from the date of initial appointment on the post of Rural Medical Officer. Any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner may also be awarded to the petitioner. That the cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submitted that this case is squarely covered by a decision dated 12.02.2014 rendered by this Court in case of Dr. Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition NO.9583/2008). [2025:RJ-JP:18444-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-973/2021] Mr. Vikram Singh on behalf of Mr. Vivek Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment dated 12.02.2014 rendered in case of Dr. Prem Singh (supra). The respondent – State is directed to grant benefit of continuity of service to the petitioners. Further, it is ordered that the period of their services rendered earlier shall be reckoned from their initial date of appointment for all purposes. The stay application also stands disposed of.”

4. The respondents who were not granted promotion under the DACP scheme approached the writ Court to challenge the order dated 11th June 2015 by which their representations were rejected. They were claiming that they were entitled to seniority from their initial date of appointment on the post of Rural Medical Officer and deserved promotion under DACP scheme after completing six years of service with effect from 01st April 2014. They were initially appointed on the post of Medical Officer on contract basis on different dates between 2003 to 2006. Their service conditions were governed under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963. On coming into force of Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Service Rules, 2008, they were regularized on the post of Rural Medical Officer vide different orders issued in September 2008.

5. Mr. Vigyan Shah, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that under the Rules of 2008 the word “service” has been defined in Rule 2 (g) to mean the Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health and Service and the respondents who were appointed on the post of Rural Medical Officer on different dates in September 2008 did not possess the qualifying service of six years in grade [2025:RJ-JP:18444-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-973/2021] pay of Rs.5,400/- so as to qualifying for promotion under the DACP scheme. The submission made by the learned AAG is to the effect that the respondents who were appointed under the Rules of 1963 on the post of Medical officer are not entitled to claim benefit of past service because the respondents held the aforementioned two posts under different rules.

6. However, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. Not only this issue was not raised by the appellant-State of Rajasthan in the memorandum of appeal, the plea urged by the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted for another reason. The reason is that merely by change of service from one department to another department the service rendered by the Government employee in the previous department shall not be wiped out and must be taken into consideration for grant of any service benefit. In the entire memorandum of appeal, the issue sought to be raised is that the period served by the Government employee on ad hoc basis cannot be counted for grant of benefits under the DACP scheme. Whereas, there is no dispute that the respondents never served on ad hoc basis and they were regularly appointed Government employees.

7. The respondents pleaded before the writ Court that the Rules of 2008 were repealed through Notification dated 03rd January

2012. In Rule 2 of the Repeal of the Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Service Rules, 2012, it is provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the rules, so repealed and all appointments, orders made or anything done under the rules, so repealed, shall be deemed to have been made or done under the [2025:RJ-JP:18444-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-973/2021] Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963. Furthermore, the decision in present case has been rendered by the writ Court in the light of the decision in Dr. “Prem Singh”. In “Kishena Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India” 1990 4 SCC 207, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a principle of law laid down by the Court should be adhered to and applied to all future cases where facts are substantially the same.

8. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.973 of 2021 is dismissed. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J AMIT/157