Contractual Service Must Count Towards Seniority and Pay Benefits: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has reinforced the principle of service continuity for contractual employees, ruling that periods of temporary, ad-hoc, or urgent appointment must be computed for seniority and all other service benefits. Justice Kuldeep Mathur presided over a batch of writ petitions filed by Nursing Officers and ANMs. The petitioners challenged the denial of their request to count their earlier contractual services under various projects like NRHM, UTB, and 108 Services for the purpose of seniority and pay benefits upon their regularization.

Key Takeaways

Mandatory Service Computation

Contractual service rendered prior to regularization must be included when calculating seniority and pay benefits, provided the initial recruitment followed a procedure established by law.

Parity with Precedents

State authorities cannot distinguish between different batches of employees if the core legal controversy—counting temporary service—remains identical to previously decided cases.

Administrative Accountability

Courts will look past technical objections regarding the method of application (such as dropping papers in boxes) to determine if a substantial selection process was followed.

Court Observations and Directions

The Rajasthan High Court rejected the State's argument that the petitioners' recruitment method was informal compared to other cases. The Bench observed that the controversy was squarely covered by the judgment in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Soni, which had achieved finality following the dismissal of an SLP and a subsequent review by the Supreme Court. The Bench observed that “This Court is of the view that in the case of petitioners also, the entire selection process was followed up in accordance with the procedure established by law. The issue involved in this case has adequately been answered and thus the petitioners too deserve to get the same treatment as has been given in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal & Ors..”

Ratio

When an employee is appointed to a post following a procedure established by law, whether on a temporary, ad-hoc, or urgent basis, and is subsequently regularized, the period of such initial service must be counted for the purpose of seniority, pay benefits, and continuity of service. Distinguishing recruitment methods that satisfy the legal threshold of a selection process to deny these benefits is impermissible under service jurisprudence.

Background

The petitioners, serving as Nursing Officers and Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANM), had been initially appointed on a contractual basis under schemes such as the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and Urgent Temporary Basis (UTB). They approached the High Court seeking to quash orders that denied them seniority and service benefits from their initial dates of appointment.

The State contested the petitions, arguing that the selection process for these specific petitioners, which involved dropping documents into boxes per an advertisement, differed from the formal Selection Committee process observed in The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal & Ors.. However, the Rajasthan High Court, relying on the principles laid down in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. ( "(2024) SCC ONLINE SC 3836": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 715), found no distinguishable features that would disentitle the petitioners to the benefits already granted to their counterparts in similar litigations.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18226/2026
Case Title: Sangeeta Kalal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kailash Jangid
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tanuj Jain on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 26901