##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:19974]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7191/2026

Arvind Singh S/o Shri Sumran Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o

Village Bhousinga, Post Jharkai, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur,

Rajasthan-321642.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Government

of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

(Rajasthan).

2. Secretary, Department of Medical and Health,

Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

(Rajasthan).

3. The Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare

Department, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

12/05/2026

1. Petitioner has filed the instant petition with following

prayers:

"It is, therefore, humbly and respectively prayed

that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept

and allow this writ petition and call for the entire record

of the case and

i) By an appropriate writ, order and direction,

respondents may be directed to count the service of

petitioner w.e.f. 17-09-2003 for the purpose of

pension, gratuity, seniority, Selection grade,

promotion, commutation of leave and to grant all

benefits (financial & otherwise) which the petitioner is

entitled to get on basis of counting his services w.e.f.

17-09-2003.

ii) By an appropriate writ, order and direction the

order dated 10-08-2009 fixing his at remuneration of

Rs. 10,000, may kindly be declared illegal and be

quashed to the extent.

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 08:55:23 AM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 04:09:09 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:19974] (2 of 3) [CW-7191/2026]

iii) pass any other writ order or direction which this

Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

iv) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in

favour of the petitioner"

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely

covered by the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.312/2026 (Suman Saharan & Ors. Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby after considering the Division Bench

judgment of this Court in the case State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Vs. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Soni [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)

No.380/2016] as well as The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.532/2016), following directions have been given:

"The respondents are directed to verify the

documents of each petitioner and compute the services

of the petitioner from the date of their initial

appointment on temporary/ad-hoc/urgent basis. Upon

such verification, if the respondents are satisfied about

the genuineness of the documents and the eligibility of

the petitioners, the benefit of continuity of services for

all purposes shall be granted to them. Appropriate

orders be passed within a period of eight weeks from

now."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the State Government preferred Special leave to Appeal (C)

No.13810/2026 against the judgment of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal

(supra) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has also been

dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated

17.04.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in

the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar Soni (supra) also although

Review Petition as well as Special Leave Petition was preferred by

the State Government but the State has remained unsuccessful.

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 08:55:23 AM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 04:09:09 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:19974] (3 of 3) [CW-7191/2026]

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, although does not

dispute that the issue in-hand has already been decided in the

case of Suman Saharan (supra), submits that the State is in the

process of filing appeal against the judgment.

6. In the light of consensus arrived at between the

learned counsel for the parties tha