ORDER : 1. Since the common question of fact and law is involved in the present batch of writ petitions, therefore, the same are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. For brevity, the facts of SBCWP No.8023/2020 Dr. Sita Ram Sharma & Ors., are taken into consideration for deciding the controversy. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners being eligible and having requisite qualification were appointed on the post of Ayurved Chikitshak by the respondent-Department in accordance with the Rajasthan Ayurved, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1973'). The appointment of the petitioners was in consonance with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1973 on a pay-scale 2000-60-2300-73- 3200-100-3500 on purely urgent/temporary basis for a period of one year or till candidates regularly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission become available, whichever is earlier. Pursuant to the orders passed by the respondent-department in the years 1991,1992 and 1993, the petitioners joined their respective services on the post of Ayurved Chikitshak. The services of the petitioners were not discontinued at any point of time. While performing the duties of Ayurved Chikitshak, some of the petitioners appeared in the regular selection process undertaken by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and cleared the same. After selection by the RPSC, the orders with respect to substantive (regular) appointment were issued in favour of those candidates by the department from time to time. The persons who were not selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission also continued to serve the department in the same capacity and were granted first and second upgradation of the pay scale (ACP) and other benefits. Vide Notification dated 8.4.1996, the department amended the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 which provides for screening of the persons like petitioners for regularisation of their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment. As per amended Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973 the seniority of the persons were also required to be determined. The respondent-department vide Notification dated 18.08.2006 further amended Rule 6 & Rule 31; whereby Proviso 7 was added in Rule 6 which provides for regularization of the persons appointed on Urgent/Temporary/Ad hoc basis on the post of Ayurved Chikitshak from 06.05.1990 to 31.12.1993 by way of screening with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment. 4. The respondent-department vide Notification dated 18.08.2006 further amended Rule 6 & Rule 31; whereby Proviso 7 was added in Rule 6 which provides for regularization of the persons appointed on Urgent/Temporary/Ad hoc basis on the post of Ayurved Chikitshak from 06.05.1990 to 31.12.1993 by way of screening with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment. 4. Proviso 9 was also inserted in Rule 31 of the Rules which prescribes that the persons appointed through screening will be placed below the persons who were regularly selected by the RPSC. After amendment in the rules, the Screening Committee was constituted, and the petitioners were screened. The petitioners were found suitable and, therefore, vide order dated 15.06.2007 and other subsequent orders, the services of the petitioners were regularised with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment. Similar benefits were also extended to the persons who were appointed on the post of Unani Medical Officer and Homeopathy Medical Officer by the respondent-Department. Some of the petitioners retired from services and Pension Department raised certain objections with respect to grant of service benefits/ACP/Pensionary benefits with effect from the date of first/initial appointment on urgent/temporary/ad-hoc basis. On a reference being received from the Pension Department, a Committee was constituted to look into the matter and submit a report. 5. The Committee made recommendations that the pensioners are entitled to get all the pensionary benefits/ACP etc. with effect from the date of their first appointment on urgent/temporary/adhoc basis. However, the recommendation so made by the Committee has not been agreed to by the respondent-Department and the respondent-Department passed an order dated 31.07.2020, to the effect that the pensioners be granted the service benefits/pensionary benefits with effect from the date of passing of the screening test/regular selection made by the Rajasthan Service Public Commission. Hence, the present writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the fruits of regularization which have been conferred in favour of the petitioners by the Department with effect from the first date of their appointment are sought to be denied by passing the order impugned dated 31.07.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that even as per the amendment in the Rules, the petitioners were screened and consequential orders of regularization were also passed in their favour with effect from the date of their first/ initial appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that even as per the amendment in the Rules, the petitioners were screened and consequential orders of regularization were also passed in their favour with effect from the date of their first/ initial appointment. They further submit that since the petitioners have been extended all the service benefits including the grant of ACP considering their date of first appointment on regular basis, therefore, the benefits which have already been granted and accrued in their favour cannot be denied. They further submit that similar benefits have been extended to the persons who were appointed in similar fashion to the petitioners prior to the year 1990 from the date of their first/ initial appointment after screening test was conducted but only in petitioners' case, the persons who have been appointed on urgent/temporary/ad-hoc basis with effect from 1991 to 1993, such benefits are being denied. They further submit that in the same Department, two classes have been created by the respondents to discriminate the case of the present petitioners vis-a-vis those persons who were appointed and similarly situated to the petitioners prior to the year 1990. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the petitioners are governed by the same set of Rules by which the other similarly situated persons in the Unani and Homeopathy wing of the respondent-Department are functioning, they have been granted the benefits of regularization and other service/pensionary benefits with effect from the date of their first appointment. Therefore, by passing the order dated 31.07.2020, the petitioners are being discriminated vis-a-vis those persons who are similarly situated to them and performing the same duties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the order dated 31.07.2020 is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, pray that the writ petitions may kindly be allowed and the order dated 31.07.2020 as well as the consequential orders of recovery dated 18.11.2019 and 18.02.2020 may be quashed and set aside. The respondents may be directed to give service benefits/pensionary benefits to the petitioners with effect from the date of their first appointment. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. The respondents may be directed to give service benefits/pensionary benefits to the petitioners with effect from the date of their first appointment. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Himanshu Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made before this Court and submit that since the appointment of the petitioners at the first instance was on urgent/temporary/adhoc basis and their regularization had taken place only after screening test conducted by the department and in the cases where the candidates have cleared the examination by the RPSC, their services cannot be treated as 'Regular' with effect from the date of first/initial appointment and, therefore, the order passed by the respondents on 31.07.2020 is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, are unable to distinguish the case of the present petitioners vis-a-vis the Chikitshaks who were appointed in similar fashion on the post of Unani Medical Officer and Homeopathy Medical Officer under the Rules of 1973. They are further unable to distinguish the case of the petitioners vis-a-vis of those persons who were appointed in the similar fashion in the same department prior to the year 1990 and have been extended the benefits of service and pensionary benefits with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment (Urgent/Temporary/Adhoc basis). 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that as per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008, the benefits of ACP is to be granted to the persons from the date on which they have been regularly appointed and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of ACP with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned order dated 31.07.2020 as well as recovery orders dated 18.11.2019 & 18.02.2020 issued against the petitioners as also the relevant record of the case. 11. It is admitted position that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Ayurved Chikitshaks on urgent/temporary/adhoc basis as per Rule 27 of the Rules of 1973. They have continuously served the respondent-Department without any break. 11. It is admitted position that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Ayurved Chikitshaks on urgent/temporary/adhoc basis as per Rule 27 of the Rules of 1973. They have continuously served the respondent-Department without any break. It is true that some of the candidates had appeared in the regular selection process undertaken by the RPSC and after passing the same, they have been regularised from the date on which they cleared the examination conducted by the RPSC. However, those persons continued in service in furtherance of the order passed at the first instance in the year 1991 1992 & 1993 till the rules were amended or the screening test was conducted. Rule 6 and Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973 which were amended in the year 2006 read as under :- ^^fu;e 6 dk la'kks/ku& jktLFkku vk;qosZfnd] ;qukuh] gksE;ksiSFkh vkSj izkd`frd fpfdRlk lsok fu;e] 1973 ¼ftUgsa blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr fu;eksa ds :i esa fufnZ"V fd;k x;k gSA½ ds fu;e 6 fo|eku ijUrqd ¼6½ ds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr u;k ijUrqd ¼7½ tksMk tk;sxk] vFkkZr~ %& ^^¼7½ fu;e 6 vUrfoZ"V fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh] ,sls leLr O;fDr;ksa dks] ftUgsa 6-5-90 ls 31-12-93 rd dh dkyof/k ds chp rnFkZ@vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij vk;qosZn fpfdRld ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj tks jktLFkku vk;qosZfnd] ;qukuh] gksE;ksiSFkh vkSj izkd`frd fpfdRlk lsok fu;e] 2006 ds izkjaHk dh frfFk dks vk;qosZn fpfdRld dk in fujarj /kkj.k fd;s gq, gksa] vk;qosZn fpfdRld ds in ij mudh mi;qDrrk fofu.khZr djus ds fy,] lfefr }kjk LØhu fd;k tk,xkA** 3- fu;e 31 dk la'kks/ku %& mDr fu;eksa ds fu;e 31 esa] fo|eku ijUrqd ¼8½ ds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr u;k ijUrqd ¼9½ tksMk tk,xk] vFkkZr~ %& **¼9½ fu;e 6 ds ijUrqd ¼7½ ds v/khu fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa dh ikjLifjd ofj"Brk vk;qosZn fpfdRld ds :i esa fujarj lsok dh vof/k ds vuqlkj vo/kkfjr dh tk;sxh vkSj ;fn lsok dh vof/k leku gks rks mudh ikjLifjd ofj"Brk vtsZUV@vLFkkbZ fu;qfDr ds le; p;u dh ;ksX;rk ds vuqlkj vo/kkfjr dh tk;sxhA ;s O;fDr jktLFkku vk;qosZfnd] ;qukuh] gksE;kiSFkh vkSj izkd`frd fpfdRlk lsok ¼la'kks/ku½ fu;e 2006 ds izo`Rr gksus dh rkjh[k rd fu;fer p;u ds ek/;e ls p;fur vkSj fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ls jsad esa lkewfgd :i ls dfu"B gksaxsA** 12. Sub Rule-7 of Rule 6 and Sub Rule 9 of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973 specifically provide that the petitioners will be screened by the Screening Committee and if found suitable, they will be placed in the seniority list below the regularly selected candidates. In furtherance of amendment in the Rules, the process for screening was undertaken by the respondent-Department and thereafter, the orders for regularization were issued in favour of the petitioners from time to time. It is also a fact that the petitioners have received the service benefits including ACP treating their services to be from the date of their first/initial appointment which ranges from 06.05.1990 to 31.12.1993. The respondent-Department had constituted a Committee to examine the objections raised by the pension department as some of the petitioners were superannuated during the interregnum period and, therefore, the Committee after thorough examination of the matter had also recommended the case of the petitioners for grant of service benefits/pensionary benefits with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment. 13. It is also noted that the persons who were appointed on similar fashion prior to 1990, the department had also passed the regularization order in their favour with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment and granted all the service/Pensionary benefits treating their appointment on regular basis. Only those persons who have been appointed between the year 1990 to 1993 are sought to be picked up by the department denying the benefits of regularisation with effect from the date of their first appointment. Since, there is no reason to deny the benefits to the petitioners which were extended to the persons who have been appointed in similar fashion prior to 1990, therefore, the case of the petitioners is clearly being discriminated vis-a-vis the similarly situated persons who have been appointed prior to 1990. It is also noted that since the service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the same set of Rules i.e. the Rules of 1973 vis-a-vis the Chikitshaks who are rendering their services in Unani and Homeopathy and even they have been extended the benefits of regularisation from the date of their first/initial appointment, therefore, there is no ground for the respondents to discriminate the case of the petitioners vis-a-vis those persons who have rendered the services in Unani and Homeopathy. 14. 14. This Court finds that the order dated 31.07.2020 as well as the orders of recovery dated 18.11.2019 and 18.02.2020 are in gross violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India so as to deny the benefits accrued in favour of the petitioners for treating their services for grant of service/pensionary benefits with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 31.07.2020 and the orders of recovery dated 18.11.2019 & 18.02.2020 are unsustainable in the eye of law and, therefore, the same are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are entitled to get all the service/pensionary benefits with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment and not from the date of their selection in the RPSC or from the date of the screening test conducted by the respondent-department. 15. The withheld pensionary benefits shall also be released by the respondent-department within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.