CW 1592/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1- Civil Writ Petition No.1592/2008 Dr. Rajiv Mangal Versus State & (3) Ors. 2- Civil Writ Petition No.1586/2008 Dr. Pankaj Goyal & Ravindra Goyal Versus State & (2) Ors. 3- Civil Writ Petition No.2366/2008 Dr. Manoj Garg Versus State & (4) Ors. Date of Order ::: 22/05/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr Dinesh K.Garg, for petitioners Mr JK Agrawal, Dy.Govt.Advocate, for respondents Since these (3) petitions involve common controversy and reply has been filed by respondent, hence were finally heard at joint request, for being disposed of by common order. Main grievance of petitioners is that they were earlier serving as Medical Officer on adhoc/contract basis and getting higher pay but on their regular selection through Rajasthan Public Service Commission (“RPSC”), however, while placing on probation as Medical Officer were fixed at monthly remuneration of Rs.7,950/- as against regular pay scale of Rs.8,000- 13,500/-, which has caused prejudice to them. Petitioners were appointed as Medical Officer on adhoc/contract basis initially on fixed pay of Rs.8,000/- & subsequently increased to Rs.9,600/- & 10,560/- but on their regular selection through RPSC they are fixed at minimum CW 1592/08 //2// in regular pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- as per particulars ad infra: On contract/ Through adhoc basis RPSC Vide Orders dt. (1)Dr.Rajeev Mangal 25/02/03 19/05/06 (2)Dr.Pankaj Goyal 22/04/03 25/05/06 (3)Dr.Ravindra Goyal 27/10/01 18/05/06 (4)Dr.Manoj Garg 12/11/99 07/11/06 Upon completion of two/three years' service on adhoc/contract basis, they were fixed on consolidated pay of Rs.9,600/- & Rs.10,560/- respectively as is evident from order dt. 26/04/06 (Ann.2-CWP-1592/08). Since they were working on adhoc/contract basis, they appeared for selection in pursuance of advertisement issued by RPSC on 05/07/05 (Ann.4) for the post of Medical Officer and were regularly appointed on the recommendations of RPSC and placed on probation vide orders (supra) at fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.7,950/- in regular pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- whereas all of them on account of their working on adhoc/contract basis for last more than 2-3 years or more at relevant point of time, were getting monthly pay of Rs.10,560/- or more, as the case may be. Counsel submits that when advertisements were issued in pursuance whereof, petitioners have participated in process of selection for the CW 1592/08 //3// post of Medical Officer – regular pay scale whereof was Rs.8,000-13,500/- and amendment notification in the service Rules was issued on 13/03/06 making it effective from 20/01/06; as such giving appointment on fixed remuneration during probation period, which is less than fixed minimum in regular pay scale duly notified vide advertisement dt.05/07/05 is otherwise not justified and notification amending Service Rules to fixed pay during probation in regular pay scale making effective from 20/01/06 cannot be applied qua applicants. Apart from merits, Counsel further submits that similar controversy arose in Dr. Harish Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan (CWP- 8131/2006) wherein vide order dt.15/01/08 Division Bench of this Court has taken note of specific statement made by Addl. Advocate General on behalf of State Govt. that remuneration which the petitioner was receiving as on 20/01/06 shall be protected by way of special allowance – in the light whereof, Counsel for Dr. Harish Gupta was not desirous of pressing the challenge to notifications dt.20/01/06 & 13/03/06 in so far as they provide for fixed salary during probation period and that being so, this Court clarified that remuneration which the petitioner was CW 1592/08 //4// getting as on 20/01/2006 during probation period shall be protected by the State Government by way of special allowance and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of. Hence Counsel for petitioners herein submits that petitioners are also entitled for the benefit extended to one of applicants being similarly situated. Though respondents have filed their reply raising objection with respect to grievance raised by petitioners; however Govt. counsel submits that once statement of Additional Advocate General on behalf of State Government has been recorded and taken note of by Division Bench in Dr.Harish Gupta Vs. State (supra), certainly no distinction can be made. Consequently, these petitions succeed and are hereby allowed in the light of order dt. 15/01/08 in Dr. Harish Gupta Vs. State (supra) and it is clarified that the remuneration which the petitioners were getting as on 20/01/06 shall be protected by State Government by way of special allowance/s during probation and accordingly consequential orders be passed. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/1592CW08(3)-2205.doc