Disposed¶31

Dr. Jitendra Yadav S/O Shri Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2025CW/7569/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Covered-by-precedent disposal; Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Department; notional benefit; continuity of service; Dies Non; break in service; pay and allowances denied for non-working period; Dr. Vaishali Biradar S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4069/2022 (Jodhpur, 04.07.2022); Dr. Lajja Ram Meena S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13147/2016; Dr. Anil Kumar SBCW No. 3375/2005 (18.01.2007); Division Bench order dated 18.4.2002; respondents conceded coverage; single-judge order, Jaipur Bench, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in view of the judgment in Dr. Vaishali Biradar (supra), with the same effect as the coordinate Bench decisions; all pending applications also stand disposed of. ¶31

Dr. Jitendra Yadav S/O Shri Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in view of the judgment in Dr. Vaishali Biradar (supra), with the same effect as the coordinate Bench decisions; all pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the controversy involved in this writ petition is the same as that already considered and decided by the coordinate Benches of this Court in Dr. Lajja Ram Meena (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13147/2016) and Dr. Vaishali Biradar (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4069/2022), such that this petition should be disposed of on the same lines.

¶15

Court's answer

Since counsel for the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submission that the controversy is covered by the coordinate Bench decisions, this writ petition stands disposed of in view of the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Vaishali Biradar (supra).

¶31

Ratio / Principle

All the pending applications in the writ petition also stand disposed of.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Sangeeta Sharma, J., disposed of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7569/2021 (Dr. Jitendra Yadav and Dr. Pardeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Department of Animal Husbandry, and Director, Animal Husbandry Department) on 03/12/2025. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the controversy involved in the writ petition had already been considered and decided by the coordinate Bench in Dr. Lajja Ram Meena (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13147/2016) and by the coordinate Bench at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Dr. Vaishali Biradar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4069/2022, decided 04.07.2022). Counsel for the respondents did not dispute the submission. The Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition in view of the Dr. Vaishali Biradar judgment and disposed of all pending applications. The substantive rulings appearing in the order - continuity of service with notional benefit (though no pay and allowances) for the period the employees did not work, and quashing of orders treating the absent period as 'Dies Non'/break in service, traced back through Dr. Anil Kumar (SBCW No. 3375/2005, decided 18.01.2007) and a Division Bench order dated 18.4.2002 - occur only within the quoted text of the coordinate Bench judgment and are not restated as independent holdings of this Court.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49197]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7569/2021

¶4

Dr. Jitendra Yadav S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o C-63, Hasan Khan Mewat Nagar Alwar.

¶5

Dr. Pardeep Singh S/o Shri Roshan Lal Yadav, Aged About 46 Years, R/o B-604, Veera Garden Ambedkar Nagar Alwar 301001.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Department Of Animal Husbandry Government Secretariat Jaipur (Rajasthan)302006.

¶9

Director, Animal Husbandry Department Rajasthan, Tonk Road Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302015.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Sharma Mr. Manik Kaswam for Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

03/12/2025

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controvery involved in this writ petition has been considered and decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Lajja Ram Meena vs The Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13147/2016) and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Dr. Vaishali Biradar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

[2025:RJ-JP:49197]

[CW-7569/2021]

(2 of 3)

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4069/2022) decided on 04.07.2022, wherein it has been held as under:

¶20

“It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issued raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order passed in Dr. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Anr.: SBCW No. 3375/2005, decided on 18.01.2007 and, therefore, the present petition may also be allowed in light of and with the similar directions as given in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by order in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar (supra).

¶21

In the case of Dr. Anil Kumar (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court, inter alia, observed and directed as under:

¶22

“Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioners earlier filed a writ petition being SBCWP No. 2070/2000, which came to be dismissed on 19.7.2000 against which the petitioners preferred a special appeal before the Division Bench being D.B. Civil Sepcial Appeal No. 973/2000 along with some other persons. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1091/2000 and 10 others which includes the special appeal filed by the present petitioners being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 758/2000 came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18.4.2002 wherein the Government was directed not to discontinue the services of the appellants therein. Thus, in view of the decision of the Division Bench, the services of the petitioners could not be discontinued and in continuity of the services, the petitioners are entitled for notional benefit though for that period they did not work, and, therefore, they are not entitled for the pay and allowances for that period. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, the petitioners are entitled for notional benefit. By orders Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 the period of absent that according to the learned counsel for

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:49197]

[CW-7569/2021]

the petitioners from 30.6.2000 to 18.4.2002 has been considered Dies Non and therefore, it amounts to be break in service. This runs contrary to the decision of the Division Bench which in clear terms directed the Government not to discontinue the services of the appellants petitioners but meanwhile the petitioners are in continuity in service and therefore, for that period also though petitioners are not entitled for pay and allowances but they are certainly entitled for notional benefit. In this view of the mater the orders Annexure-3, 4 and 5 deserve to be quashed and the services of the petitioners during the period, they did not work are treated to be continued in service in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court.

¶27

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs”.

¶28

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is also allowed in light of and with the similar directions as given in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar (supra) and the order dated 15.06.2004 (Annex.-5) and 07.04.2005 (Annex.-6) are quashed and set aside.

¶29

The services of the petitioners during the period, they did not work are treated to be continued in service in view of the decision of the Division Bench.”

¶30

Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of in view of judgment passed in the case of Dr. Vaishali

¶32

Biradar(supra).

¶33

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶34

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J

¶35

HEENA/21