Delay in framing service rules is unjustified and violative of an employee's rights. An employee is entitled to regularisation and consequential benefits despite the absence of formal rules if he/she has been selected for the post on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee and has been performing the duties of the post for a considerable period.

1. (Oral)- Since both the aforesaid writ petitions involve identical questions of law, the same are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 567/1993, who is serving in the capacity of Deputy Director, (Field operations). Information, Education Communication Bureau (For short "IECB") which is a wing of the Directorate of Medical and Health Services of the State Government at Jaipur, has moved this court by way of the instant writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that after obtaining requisite educational qualifications and after having undergone training in the field of Extension Education from the Central Health Education Bureau, New Delhi and after having participated in the training programme sponsored by the National Health Institute and Family Welfare media Production from the institute of mass communication and designs Ahmedabad and from Bombay respectively, the petitioner prepared a project concerning information, education communication which had its approval from high power committee of the State Government, Central Government and the experts in the field in the year 1989-90. The petitioner has to his credit about 31 years of experience in the field of health education and in the I.E.C.B. He was initially appointed as a health educator in the department of health education of the State Government on 1.8.1961 and after his post graduation in sociology in 1960 from Rajasthan University, has been rendering his services in the said department. In the year 1966 he was promoted as health education extension officer and in 1968 on the post of education publicity officer for short `EPO' pursuant to his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer in the year 1973 and thereafter promoted as Asstt. Director I.E.C.B. on recommendation of the Selection Committee in the year 1984.

3. It has been brought to the notice of this court that ever since his absorption to I.E.C.B. Directorate of Medical and health, the petitioner has been performing duties on various posts in absence of service Rules on an ex-cadre post as Assistant Director and now as Deputy Director field operations on ad-hoc basis. Since the petitioner was senior most in the cadre of Asstt. Directors of the Bureau, when the post of Deputy Director fell vacant in the year 1992, the petitioner was assigned the charge of Deputy Director (Field operations) being the next higher post in the Bureau.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was given the charge of the post of Deputy Director (Field Operations) on temporary basis since the process of formulating and finalising the rules was under consideration of the State Government and since the Rules governing the service conditions of the employees of the Bureau had not been framed, the petitioner has sought necessary directions from this court as mentioned hereinafter. The pay-scale of Asstt. Director is As. 4200-4000 and that of Deputy Director is As. 3000-4500 and both the said posts have been proposed to be placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4500 and Rs. 3700-5000 respectively in accordance with the amended Rules of 1997.

5. During the course of hearing it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ever since his appointment in the department of Medical & Health & subsequently on deputation to I.E.C.B. the petitioner has been discharging his duties in absence of any formal rules and this is primarily the reason for which his services have yet not been regularised as Deputy Director in the said department notwithstanding his due selection on the substantive post of Asstt. Director pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel has further expressed the apprehension that since the petitioner is due to retire w.e.f. 31.7.1997, if the rules which are under process are not promulgated, he will be deprived of consequential benefits, i.e., pension, gratuity etc. as admissible to similarly