BIJENDRA KUMAR TYAGI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the common question of fact and law is involved in the present batch of writ petitions, therefore, the same are being heard and decided by this common order. For brevity, the facts of SBCWP No.8023/2020 Dr. Sita Ram Sharma & Ors., are taken into consideration for deciding the controversy.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners being eligible and having requisite qualification were appointed on the post of Ayurved Chikitshak by the respondent-Department in accordance with the Rajasthan Ayurved, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1973'). The appointment of the petitioners was in consonance with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1973 on a pay-scale 2000-60-2300-73- 3200-100-3500 on purely urgent/temporary basis for a period of one year or till candidates regularly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission become available, whichever is earlier. Pursuant to the orders passed by the respondent-department in the years 1991,1992 and 1993, the petitioners joined their respective services on the post of Ayurved Chikitshak. The services of the petitioners were not discontinued at any point of time. While performing the duties of Ayurved Chikitshak, some of the petitioners appeared in the regular selection process undertaken by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and cleared the same. After selection by the RPSC, the orders with respect to substantive (regular) appointment were issued in favour of those candidates by the department from time to time. The persons who were not selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission also continued to serve the department in the same capacity and were granted first and second upgradation of the pay scale (ACP) and other benefits. Vide Notification dtd. 8/4/1996, the department amended the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 which provides for screening of the persons like petitioners for regularisation of their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment. As per amended Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973 the seniority of the persons were also required to be determined. The respondent-department vide Notification dtd. 18/8/2006 further amended Rule 6 and Rule 31; whereby Proviso 7 was added in Rule 6 which provides for regularization of the persons appointed on Urgent/Temporary/Ad hoc basis on the post of Ayurved Chikitshak from 6/5/1990 to 31/12/1993 by way of screening with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment.

(3.) Proviso 9 was also inserted in Rule 31 of the Rules which prescribes that the persons appointed through screening will be placed below the persons who were regularly selected by the RPSC. After amendment in the rules, the Screening Committee was constituted, and the petitioners were screened. The petitioners were found suitable and, therefore, vide order dtd. 15/6/2007 and other subsequent orders, the services of the petitioners were regularised with effect from the date of their first/ initial appointment. Similar benefits were also extended to the persons who were appointed on the post of Unani Medical Officer and Homeopathy Medical Officer by the respondent-Department. Some of the petitioners retired from services and Pension Department raised certain objections with respect to grant of service benefits/ACP/Pensionary benefits with effect from the date of first/initial appointment on urgent/temporary/ad-hoc basis. On a reference being received from the Pension Department, a Committee was constituted to look into the matter and submit a report.