IMPORTANT POINT
When the appointees appointed under the scheme have completed more than almost 15 years of service now and also have acquired the professional qualifications, they cannot be denied regularization at this point of time.

ORDER :

1. The Present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:

“10. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner, therefore, prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order-

(A) Directing the respondents, their agents, servants, etc. to grant benefits of Permanency in Service, Higher Pay Scale, Leave Encashment, Contributory Provident Fund, Leave Travel Concession, State Insurance, and such other benefits as are granted to persons working on permanent sanctioned posts and/or which are being granted and which are paid to similarly situated employees/or and the employees appointed by the State Government on permanent basis and who are doing similar work and are performing same duties, in conformity with the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, and as have been given to identically situated persons and on the principles laid down by Honourable Supreme Court of India in the judgment dated 26.10.2016, in the case of State of Punjab versus Jagjit Singh and others, in Civil Appeal No. Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013 and connected matters, and in the case of Randhir Singh versus Union of India reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618, which judgments are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and also confirming the judgments of this Honourable Court rendered in Special Civil Application Nos. 4269 of 2016 confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 616 of 2016, Special Civil Application 4787 of 2016 to 4791 of 2016; Special Civil Application No. 8152 of 2015 and connected matters, disposed of by way of CAV common Judgment dated 07.09.2016 and in Special Civil Application No. 709 of 2014 confirmed by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1079 of 2014;

[B] Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to :-

(i) Restrain the respondents, their officers, agents, servants, etc. from terminating the services of the petitioner and/or from altering in any manners the service benefits being granted to the petitioner.

(ii) Restrain the respondents, their officers, agents, servants, etc. from in any manner continuing with the process of making appointments to the post of Lecturers, Readers, Professors in Ayurvedic Colleges under the Respondent State, which process is likely to commence in pursuance of the GPSC advertisement dated 15.04.2017 and 15.05.2017 and/or any other notice or announcement for the process of appointment.

(c) Grant an ex parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (B)(i) and (ii) above;

(D) Pass such other and further order or orders, as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

(E) Award Costs.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc reader in the Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, initially for a period of six months, which period was further extended from time to time till regular GPSC candidates are available, whichever is earlier. In response to this appointment, the petitioner was continued in the employment and from time to time his employment was extended according to the petitioner. For approximately more than 7 years and 3 months from the date of joining, the petitioner continued but the petitioner was deprived of certain benefits. As a result of this, has filed this petition for seeking aforesaid relief. The main crux of submissions for seeking reliefs are as under :-

“3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the arbitrary, highhanded, illegal, unreasonable and irrational action of the respondents in -

a) Denying 'equal pay for equal work’, to the petitioner, as is being paid to employees working on regular basis against sanctioned posts and performing same duties whi