Allowed

Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra S/O Shri Ramvilas Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2023CW/10200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a petitioner appointed on an ad-hoc basis under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Service Rules is entitled to service and pension benefits from the date of initial appointment, not from the date of regularization, following the precedent of Bijendra Kumar Tyagi, thereby quashing orders denying such benefits.

What did the court decide?

Quashed recovery orders; granted entitlement to all service/pensionary benefits from date of first appointment; directed release of withheld pensionary benefits within four weeks.

Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra S/O Shri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10200/2023

¶3

Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra S/o Shri Ramvilas Sharma, aged 57 years, R/o Arawali Vihar, Vivekanand Colony, Panchayat Samiti Road, Dausa

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Govt. Ayurved and Indian Medical Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, Indian Medicine & Ayurved Department, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶8

Dy. Director (Jaipur-B) Indian Medicine & Ayurved Department, Ayush Bhawan, NRI Circle, Sector 26, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. J.K. Moolchandani
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Srijana Shresth for
	Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

18/08/2023

¶14

By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to count his services as Ayurved Chikitsak from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of grant of annual grade increments, selection grade, ACP and other service benefits.

¶15

The case of petitioner is that he was initially appointed on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak vide order dated 19-1-1991 on Adhoc basis under provisions of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1973’) and later on his Adhoc period was extended, as well as in continuity his services have been regularized vide order dated 7-6-2008 w.e.f. 18-8-2007.

¶16

[CW-10200/2023]

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

Counsel for petitioner has argued that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 19-1-1991 in terms of the judgment dated 12-12023 passed by coordinate bench at Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur in case of Bijendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11021/2020. In the said case the court examined the issue that appointees under the Rules of 1973 from 6-5-1990 to 31-12-1993 have been discriminated with appointees of previous and post period and have been arbitrarily discriminated. The Court held that such appointees of the Rules of 1973 are entitled to get all service benefits with effect fro the date of their first/ initial appointment and not from the date when their selection was regularized by the Screening Committee. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 12-1-2023 reads thus:

¶19

“Sub Rule-7 of Rule 6 and Sub Rule 9 of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973 specifically provide that the petitioners will be screened by the Screening Committee and if found suitable, they will be placed in the seniority list below the regularly selected candidates. In furtherance of amendment in the Rules, the process for screening was undertaken by the respondent-Department and thereafter, the orders for regularization were issued in favour of the petitioners from time to time. It is also a fact that the petitioners have received the service benefits including ACP treating their services to be from the date of their first/initial appointment which ranges from 06.05.1990 to 31.12.1993. The respondent-Department had constituted a Committee to examine the objections raised by the pension department as some of the petitioners were superannuated during the interregnum period and, therefore, the Committee after thorough examination of the matter had also recommended the case of the petitioners for grant of service benefits/pensionary benefits with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment.

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CW-10200/2023]

¶22

It is also noted that the persons who were appointed on similar fashion prior to 1990, the department had also passed the regularization order in their favour with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment and granted all the service/Pensionary benefits treating their appointment on regular basis. Only those persons who have been appointed between the year 1990 to 1993 are sought to be picked up by the department denying the benefits of regularisation with effect from the date of their first appointment. Since, there is no reason to deny the benefits to the petitioners which were extended to the persons who have been appointed in similar fashion prior to 1990,therefore, the case of the petitioners is clearly being discriminated vis-a-vis the similarly situated persons who have been appointed prior to 1990. It is also noted that since the service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the same set of Rules i.e. the Rules of 1973 vis-a-vis the Chikitshaks who are rendering their services in Unani and Homeopathy and even they have been extended the benefits of regularisation from the date of their first/initial appointment, therefore, there is no ground for the respondents to discriminate the case of the petitioners vis-a-vis those persons who have rendered the services in Unani and Homeopathy.

¶23

This Court finds that the order dated 31.07.2020 as well as the orders of recovery dated 18.11.2019 and 18.02.2020 are in gross violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India so as to deny the benefits accrued in favour of the petitioners for treating their services for grant of service/pensionary benefits with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment.

¶24

In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 31.07.2020 and the orders of recovery dated 18.11.2019 & 18.02.2020 are unsustainable in the eye of law and, therefore, the same are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are entitled to get all the service/pensionary benefits with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment and not from the date of their selection in the RPSC or from the date of the screening test conducted by the respondent-department. The withheld pensionary benefits shall also be released by the respondentdepartment within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

¶25

(4 of 4)

¶26

[CW-10200/2023]

¶27

Counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the judgment in

¶28

the case of Brijendra Kumar Tyagi (supra ) has been implemented by State Government as the Government has decided not to challenge the same. He has also pointed out that this judgment has further been followed in umpteen number of cases in respect of candidate similarly situated and reference of the order dated 28-2-2023 in SBCWP No.12603/2020, Dr.Madan Mohan Sharma & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, passed by a coordinate bench of this court has been made.

¶29

Counsel for respondents has not been able to distinguish the case of petitioner with that of Brijendra Kumar Tyagi (supra ) as also in respect of other persons who are similarly situated to the petitioner.

¶30

In view of aforesaid, in terms of the judgment in case of Brijendra Kumar Tyagi (supra ) the petitioner is also entitled for all service benefits from the date of his first/ initial appointment as Ayurved Chikitsak i.e. 19-1-1991.

¶31

Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶34

NITIN/171

Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra S/O Shri Ramvilas Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra S/O Shri Ramvilas Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Singh Rathore S/O Babu Singh Rathore Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Anjana Nogia W/O Gopal Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Prasad Meena S/O Shri Mool Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj S/O Rai Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Agarwal S/O Shri K.M Agarwal Vs the State of Rajasthan