CW 4922/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4922/06 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 12/01/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Jitender Mitruka, for petitioner Mr. M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State *** Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that pay which the petitioner was getting at the time of his regular selection as Medical Officer may be protected as he was already working on urgent temporary basis before his selection through RPSC as Medical Officer appointed vide order dt.12th November, 1999. When the matter came before this court on 6th January, 2009, counsel for petitioner submits that identical controversy raised in the instant petition has been decided by this court in Dr. Rajiv Mangal Vs. State [2008 WLC-UC-640]. Main grievance of the petitioner is that his earlier service as Medical Officer on ad hoc/urgent temporary basis while he was getting CW 4922/06 [2] higher pay but on his regular selection through RPSC as Rural Medical Officer and while placing him on probation his monthly remuneration has been reduced to 7950/- against regular pay scale 8000-13500 which has caused prejudice to him. Division Bench of this court in Dr.Harish Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan (CWP-131/2006) taking note thereof, this court also decided the writ petition which involved similar controversy in the judgment [supra]. In Dr.Harish Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan (CWP-131/2006) 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 getting as on 20/01/2006 during probation period CW 4922/06 [3] shall be protected by the State Government by way of special allowance and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is also entitled for the benefit extended to one of applicants being similarly situated. Though respondents have not filed their reply 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. Controversy in the instant petition is no longer remain res integra in the light of judgment referred to supra. Under interim order of this court dt.4th October, 2006, the pay which the petitioner was getting prior to his regular selection has already been protected. Consequently, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed in the light of order dt.15/01/08 CW 4922/06 [4] in Dr. Harish Gupta Vs. State (supra) it is clarified that the remuneration which the petitioner was getting as on 20/01/06 shall be protected by State Government by way of special allowance during probation and consequential orders may accordingly be passed. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA4922CW06 12-1.doc