Statutory regularisation requires that service benefits, including pension and ACP, must be calculated from the date of initial appointment, reinforcing equality rights and preventing discrimination.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. These batch of intra-court appeals, preferred by the State of Rajasthan and its functionaries of the Ayurved Department, have been listed together for analogous hearing, as they involve common questions of law and fact arising out of substantially identical orders passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court at both the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, and the Jaipur Bench.

1.1. The appeals at the Jaipur Bench were directed to be heard analogously with the connected matters pending at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in view of the order dated 11.09.2024, passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.881/2023 ( State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ramashankar Prateek ) and connected cases. By the said order, the Hon’ble Division Bench at Jaipur noted that the impugned orders in those writ petitions were based upon the judgment rendered in Bijendra Kumar Tyagi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11021/2020, decided on 12.01.2023, which itself was under challenge in appeals pending before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.

1.2. Taking into consideration the nature of reliefs sought, primarily concerning pensionary and terminal benefits of retired Ayurved Medical Officers and the overlapping legal issues involved, both sets of appeals were directed to be heard together. Accordingly, the matters from the Principal Seat at Jodhpur as well as the Jaipur Bench have been clubbed and are being decided by this common judgment.

1.3. At the outset, it is clarified that certain applications for withdrawal of writ petitions were moved on behalf of some of the respondent–writ petitioners during the pendency of these appeals. Vide order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the said applications were considered. Consequently, the writ petition forming the subject matter of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.912/2023 was permitted to be withdrawn, and accordingly, the said appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. Likewise, in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.894/2023, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn qua the following respondent–writ petitioners:

(i) Dr. Ramji Lal Sharma,

(ii) Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma,

(iii) Dr. Sundar Lal Joshi,

(iv) Dr. Gajendra Prasad Barbar,

(v) Dr. Hukam Chand Gautam,

(vi) Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Jat,

(vii) Dr. Umadutt Sharma, and

(viii) Dr. Vijay Prakash Sharma.

1.4. It is, therefore, made clear that the present common judgment does not concern the aforesaid appeals and writ petitioners whose matters stand disposed of in terms of the said order dated 20.05.2025. Furthermore, it is also noted that, in respect of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1088/2023, arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3904/2023, the respondent No.2 (writ petitioner) had sought withdrawal of the writ petition qua him, which prayer was allowed vide order dated 28.08.2025, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition to that extent. Accordingly, the present adjudication does not include the said respondent No.2 (writ petitioner) in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1088/2023.

1.5. In view of the above, it is reiterated that this common judgment shall be confined only to the remaining connected appeals that survive for consideration on merits, excluding those writ petitions and parties which already stand disposed of as withdrawn.

2. Since all the instant appeals arise out of a common controversy, though with marginal variations in individual factual settings, this Court deems it appropriate, for the purpose of analogous adjudication, to treat D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.928/2023 (The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar Sharma) as the lead case. Accordingly, the prayer clauses, factual matri