PG students in Ayurveda are entitled to equal stipends as those in Allopathy, and the State must consider representations based on prior judgments and recommendations.

JUDGMENT

1. While inviting Court's attention towards the judgment dated 23.6.2005 rendered in the case of Dr. Vedwati Pareek v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.755/2004), Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this Court has held that the PG students of Indian System of Medicine, Ayurveda are also entitled to equal stipend as is being paid to the Modern System of Medicine, Allopathy.

2. Learned counsel further submits that the State Government has been proportionately increasing the stipend time and again which is evident from perusal of order dated 20.8.2010.

3. He adds that by way of communication dated 8.4.2019, the Principal of the Government Ayurveda College has recommended to increase the stipend payable to the persons doing Post Graduation in Indian System of Medicine, Ayurveda.

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the competent authority of the State Government is directed to consider petitioners' representation in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Vedwati Pareek (supra) and in light of the recommendation dated 8.4.2019.

5. The writ petition is therefore, disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to file a representation alongwith photostat copy of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Vedwati Pareek (supra); a photostat copy of the recommendation letter dated 8.4.2019; a photostat copy of order dated 20.8.2010 and a certified copy of the order instant within a period of two weeks from today.

6. In case, the representation is so addressed, the competent authority of the State Government shall do the needful in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within twelve weeks of receiving the representation.

7. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the petitioner's representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.

8. In case any of the petitioners' grievance still persist, they shall be be at liberty to take appropriate remedy, including filing of a fresh writ petition.

9. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.