JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. These batch of intra-court appeals, preferred by the State of Rajasthan and its functionaries of the Ayurved Department, have been listed together for analogous hearing, as they involve common questions of law and fact arising out of substantially identical orders passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court at both the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, and the Jaipur Bench. 1.1. The appeals at the Jaipur Bench were directed to be heard analogously with the connected matters pending at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in view of the order dated 11.09.2024, passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.881/2023 ( State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ramashankar Prateek ) and connected cases. By the said order, the Hon’ble Division Bench at Jaipur noted that the impugned orders in those writ petitions were based upon the judgment rendered in Bijendra Kumar Tyagi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11021/2020, decided on 12.01.2023, which itself was under challenge in appeals pending before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. 1.2. Taking into consideration the nature of reliefs sought, primarily concerning pensionary and terminal benefits of retired Ayurved Medical Officers and the overlapping legal issues involved, both sets of appeals were directed to be heard together. Accordingly, the matters from the Principal Seat at Jodhpur as well as the Jaipur Bench have been clubbed and are being decided by this common judgment. 1.3. At the outset, it is clarified that certain applications for withdrawal of writ petitions were moved on behalf of some of the respondent–writ petitioners during the pendency of these appeals. Vide order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the said applications were considered. Consequently, the writ petition forming the subject matter of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.912/2023 was permitted to be withdrawn, and accordingly, the said appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. Likewise, in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.894/2023, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn qua the following respondent–writ petitioners: (i) Dr. Ramji Lal Sharma, (ii) Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, (iii) Dr. Sundar Lal Joshi, (iv) Dr. Gajendra Prasad Barbar, (v) Dr. Hukam Chand Gautam, (vi) Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Jat, (vii) Dr. Umadutt Sharma, and (viii) Dr. Vijay Prakash Sharma. 1.4. Likewise, in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.894/2023, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn qua the following respondent–writ petitioners: (i) Dr. Ramji Lal Sharma, (ii) Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, (iii) Dr. Sundar Lal Joshi, (iv) Dr. Gajendra Prasad Barbar, (v) Dr. Hukam Chand Gautam, (vi) Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Jat, (vii) Dr. Umadutt Sharma, and (viii) Dr. Vijay Prakash Sharma. 1.4. It is, therefore, made clear that the present common judgment does not concern the aforesaid appeals and writ petitioners whose matters stand disposed of in terms of the said order dated 20.05.2025. Furthermore, it is also noted that, in respect of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1088/2023, arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3904/2023, the respondent No.2 (writ petitioner) had sought withdrawal of the writ petition qua him, which prayer was allowed vide order dated 28.08.2025, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition to that extent. Accordingly, the present adjudication does not include the said respondent No.2 (writ petitioner) in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1088/2023. 1.5. In view of the above, it is reiterated that this common judgment shall be confined only to the remaining connected appeals that survive for consideration on merits, excluding those writ petitions and parties which already stand disposed of as withdrawn. 2. Since all the instant appeals arise out of a common controversy, though with marginal variations in individual factual settings, this Court deems it appropriate, for the purpose of analogous adjudication, to treat D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.928/2023 (The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar Sharma) as the lead case. Accordingly, the prayer clauses, factual matrix, and legal submissions are being referred to from the said appeal. The rival submissions of the parties and the observations of this Court in this common judgment shall, unless otherwise specified, be understood with reference to the facts of the lead case. 2.1. The prayer clauses of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.928/2023 (The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar Sharma) read as follows: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.01.2023 may kindly be set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner may be dismissed. v. Pawan Kumar Sharma) read as follows: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.01.2023 may kindly be set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner may be dismissed. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be passed in favour of the humble appellants.” 3. The bone of contention in the present case, as raised in the writ petitions wherein the impugned common order has been passed by the learned Single Judge, was that the Committee constituted by the appellant–State itself had recommended that pensioners like the respondents–writ petitioners were entitled to all pensionary and service benefits, including Assured Career Progression (ACP), with effect from the date of their first appointment on urgent/temporary/ad hoc basis. However, despite such recommendations and the fact that the services of the writ petitioners were duly regularised after being found suitable by the duly constituted Screening Committee, the appellant–State, while disagreeing with the Committee’s report, issued the impugned order dated 31.07.2020 directing that such benefits would be admissible only from the date of screening or regular selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). It was this departmental decision that formed the genesis of the writ petitions, which culminated in the order presently under appeal. 3.1. The learned Single Judge, at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, decided a batch of writ petitions, including S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11021/2020, Bijendra Kumar Tyagi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., by a common judgment dated 12.01.2023, treating S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8023/2020 (Dr. Sita Ram Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) as the lead case. The learned Single Judge noted that all the writ petitions involved identical questions of law and fact, arising from similar orders of appointment, service continuation, and regularisation under the same statutory framework. 3.2. The writ petitioners, being qualified Ayurved Chikitshaks, were appointed between the years 1991 and 1993 on urgent/temporary/ad hoc basis under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Ayurved, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter reffered to as “the Rules of 1973”). 3.2. The writ petitioners, being qualified Ayurved Chikitshaks, were appointed between the years 1991 and 1993 on urgent/temporary/ad hoc basis under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Ayurved, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter reffered to as “the Rules of 1973”). Their services continued uninterruptedly and, after amendments to the Rules, particularly those made by Notifications dated 08.04.1996 and 18.08.2006, they became eligible for screening and regularisation from the date of their first appointment. Pursuant to these amendments, a Screening Committee was constituted, which found the petitioners suitable and accordingly regularised their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment. 3.3. The learned Single Judge noted that the petitioners had been granted all consequential service benefits, including ACP, on the basis of their first appointment and that the Department had also extended identical benefits to similarly situated Ayurved Chikitshaks appointed prior to 1990, as well as to Unani and Homeopathy Medical Officers governed by the same Rules. It was observed that the subsequent order dated 31.07.2020, denying pensionary benefits from the initial date of appointment only for those appointed between 1990 and 1993, was discriminatory and arbitrary, offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3.4. Consequently, the learned Single Judge allowed the batch of writ petitions, quashed the order dated 31.07.2020 and the connected recovery orders dated 18.11.2019 and 18.02.2020, and directed the State to grant all service and pensionary benefits with effect from the date of first appointment and to release the withheld benefits within four weeks. 3.5. The State of Rajasthan and its functionaries have preferred the present intra-court appeals, assailing the impugned common judgment primarily on the grounds that- (i) the writ petitioners were initially appointed only on ad hoc or temporary basis without regular selection and hence could not claim continuity of service from such date; (ii) the regularisation after screening in 2007 constituted a fresh appointment in law, conferring benefits prospectively; and (iii) the direction to grant retrospective pensionary and ACP benefits from the date of first appointment imposes a substantial financial burden and runs contrary to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2008”), which links such benefits to the date of regular appointment. 3.6. 3.6. In view of the aforesaid background, the central issue which arises for adjudication in this batch of appeals is: I. Whether Ayurved Chikitshaks appointed between 06.05.1990 and 31.12.1993 on urgent/temporary/ad hoc basis, whose services were later regularised after screening under the amended Rules of 1973, are entitled to reckon their service from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of pensionary and consequential benefits, or whether such benefits accrue only from the date of regularisation. 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Advocate and Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat; Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG, appearing on behalf of the appellant–State, submitted that the respondent–writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak (Ayurvedic Doctor) on 26.07.1993 under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1973 on urgent temporary basis. Such appointment was continued, as no direct recruitment to the said post was made by the Department for several years. 4.1. It was submitted that by Notification dated 18.08.2006, an amendment was made in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973, introducing a provision for screening of persons like the writ petitioners to adjudge their suitability for the post of Ayurved Chikitsak. In pursuance of Sub–rule (7) of Rule 6 , a Screening Committee was constituted, which conducted the screening process, and by order dated 15.06.2007, the services of the concerned Ayurvedic Doctors were regularised. Some of the writ petitioners, meanwhile, were also selected through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), and their services were confirmed with effect from 01.04.1998. 4.2. It was further submitted that pursuant to the screening and subsequent confirmation, the writ petitioners were granted the first and second Assured Career Progressions (ACPs) by counting their services from 26.07.1993, followed by extension of benefits under the Rules of 2008 from the same date. 4.3. It was submitted that initially, appointments on urgent temporary basis were made as early as 1989, and with respect to Ayurvedic Doctors appointed up to 06.05.1990, an amendment was made on 08.04.1996 inserting Sub–rule (5) in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973. Pursuant to that amendment, an order dated 08.08.1997 was issued for screening of such Ayurvedic Doctors. 4.3.1. It was pointed out that similar provisions were made for Homoeopathic and Unani Medical Officers, whereby their services were regularised from the date of their initial appointment. Pursuant to that amendment, an order dated 08.08.1997 was issued for screening of such Ayurvedic Doctors. 4.3.1. It was pointed out that similar provisions were made for Homoeopathic and Unani Medical Officers, whereby their services were regularised from the date of their initial appointment. In this regard, a further amendment dated 17.08.2016 was made to extend such benefit to Unani and Homoeopathy Chikitsaks, and by order dated 13.06.2017, their services were regularised from the date of initial appointment. 4.4. It was submitted that drawing parity with the Unani and Homoeopathy branches, the writ petitioners claimed that they, too, ought to be given the same benefit. However, the Department had revised the ACPs of Ayurvedic Doctors appointed between 06.05.1990 and 31.12.1993, counting their service from the date of screening, and initiated recovery of the excess amounts earlier granted. 4.5. It was further submitted that as regards Ayurvedic Doctors appointed between 06.05.1990 and 31.12.1993, the State Government, with concurrence of the Department of Personnel (DoP), took a decision on 18.11.2019 to conduct screening in accordance with the Notification dated 18.08.2006, and consequential regularisation orders were issued on 15.06.2007. Doctors selected through RPSC, however, were to be granted benefits from the date of such selection. 4.6. It was also submitted that a subsequent decision was taken by the Department on 18.02.2020, directing that services of Ayurved Chikitsaks regularised after the screening conducted pursuant to the Notification dated 18.08.2006 would be treated as regular w.e.f. 15.06.2007, whereas RPSC-selected doctors would be treated as regular from the date of selection. 4.7. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the issue concerning grant of selection scale had already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (Civil Appeal No. 2848/2006, decided on 08.05.2009), followed by a consequential circular dated 29.06.2009 issued by the State Government. 4.8. It was contended that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the ratio of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra), which, according to the appellant–State, did not support the case of the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge, it was urged, erroneously extended the benefit of service and pension reckoning from the date of initial appointment, contrary to the principle laid down therein. 4.9. The learned Single Judge, it was urged, erroneously extended the benefit of service and pension reckoning from the date of initial appointment, contrary to the principle laid down therein. 4.9. It was further submitted that a subsequent decision of the State Government dated 14.09.2023 clarified that ad hoc service rendered prior to regular selection through RPSC or screening cannot be counted for the purpose of ACP, which is in consonance with Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra). 4.10. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Chandra Ram (D.B. Special Appeal No.589/2015, decided on 03.07.2017) wherein it was held that benefits relating to seniority or selection grade cannot be extended for the period prior to screening or regular selection. 4.11. The learned Advocate General submitted that though the regularisation of the writ petitioners’ services was not disputed, the date of regularisation, being much later than their initial appointment, must form the basis for all service-related benefits, including ACP. He argued that the principle governing ACP clearly stipulates that no service rendered prior to regularisation or substantive appointment can be counted for the purpose of time- bound financial upgradation. He emphasized that the seniority of these doctors has already been fixed from the date of screening, which has attained finality, and therefore, the same principle must govern the grant of ACP. It was also submitted that the impugned order, if upheld, would impact nearly 521 Ayurved Chikitsaks, entailing a substantial financial burden on the State exchequer. 4.12. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the scheme of Assured Career Progression (ACP) was introduced under the Rules of 2008, wherein Rule 5 (11) defines “regular service” and Rule 19(4) prescribes that financial upgradation is admissible only after ten years of continuous regular service in the same grade pay. For ready reference, the relevant extracts were cited as follows: “ 5. Definitions.- In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (11) “Regular Service” means and includes service rendered by a Government servant on his appointment after regular selection in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant recruitment rules for that post. The period of service rendered on ad-hoc basis/urgent temporary basis shall not be counted as the regular service. The period of service rendered on ad-hoc basis/urgent temporary basis shall not be counted as the regular service. In other words, the period of service which is countable for seniority shall only be counted as regular service” “19. Scheme of Assured Career Progression.- In lieu of selection grades, the scheme of Assured Career Progression (ACP) with three financial upgradations shall be allowed as under: - (4) Financial upgradation under the scheme will be available whenever a person has spent 10 years continuous regular service in the same grade pay. However, not more than three financial upgradations shall be given in the entire career.” 4.13. Relying on the above provisions, it was contended that Rule 5 (11) of the Rules of 2008 categorically excludes any ad hoc or temporary service from being counted as regular service for the purpose of grant of ACP, and thus, the learned Single Judge’s direction to reckon such period for pensionary and ACP benefits is legally untenable. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R.N. Mathur Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Mr. D.S. Sodha, Ms. Aditi Vats, Mr. Akshit Gupta, Mr. Himanshu Pareek, Mr. Yashpal Khileri, Mr. Hemant Shrimali appearing on behalf of the respondents–writ petitioners vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate General. It was submitted that the respondents–writ petitioners were appointed as Ayurved Chikitsaks in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1973, and that they had continuously served the Department without interruption. During service, the State itself had granted them first and second financial upgradations (ACP) and other consequential service benefits by treating their services as regular from the date of their initial appointment. 5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the State Government itself, vide Notification dated 08.04.1996, amended Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 to provide for screening of such temporary/urgent/ad hoc appointees for the purpose of regularisation with effect from the date of their first appointment. The respondents–writ petitioners were duly screened by the duly constituted Screening Committee, found suitable, and consequently regularised from the date of their initial appointment. Hence, once the process of screening and regularisation was carried out under the authority of the amended Rules, the contention of the appellant–State that the said service cannot be treated as “regular service” is wholly untenable. 5.2. Hence, once the process of screening and regularisation was carried out under the authority of the amended Rules, the contention of the appellant–State that the said service cannot be treated as “regular service” is wholly untenable. 5.2. It was emphasized that as per the amended Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973, the seniority of persons so screened was to be determined in accordance with the said provision, and by Notification dated 18.08.2006, further amendments were made to Rules 6 and 31, whereby Proviso (7) was added to Rule 6 . The said proviso expressly provides for regularisation of persons appointed on urgent/temporary/ad hoc basis on the post of Ayurved Chikitsak between 06.05.1990 and 31.12.1993, by way of screening, with effect from the date of their first/initial appointment. 5.3. It was also pointed out that simultaneously, Proviso (9) was inserted in Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973, prescribing that persons appointed through screening shall be placed below the candidates regularly selected by the RPSC in the seniority list. The respondents–writ petitioners submitted that this entire process— amendment, screening, and regularisation—was carried out strictly in accordance with the statutory framework, and hence, the benefits flowing from such regularisation could not subsequently be withdrawn or curtailed. 5.4. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents–writ petitioners had already retired from service, and their pensionary and ACP entitlements had been computed on the basis of their regularisation from the date of initial appointment. Once the Department itself had granted such benefits and treated their service as continuous and regular, it was impermissible for the State to reopen settled entitlements or effect recoveries. 5.5. It was further urged that there existed no distinction between Ayurved Chikitsaks appointed between 1990–1993 and those appointed prior to 1990, or between Ayurved, Unani, and Homoeopathy branches, all being governed by the same Rules of 1973. The denial of benefits to one class of similarly situated employees, while continuing them for others, amounted to hostile discrimination, squarely offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5.6. Learned counsel also contended that once the Department had regularised the respondents retrospectively from the date of initial appointment, such regularisation had the effect of validating their entire past service, and therefore, for all consequential purposes—including ACP and pensionary benefits—their service had to be reckoned from that date. 5.6. Learned counsel also contended that once the Department had regularised the respondents retrospectively from the date of initial appointment, such regularisation had the effect of validating their entire past service, and therefore, for all consequential purposes—including ACP and pensionary benefits—their service had to be reckoned from that date. The impugned order dated 31.07.2020, denying them such benefits, was thus contrary to the statutory amendments, arbitrary in nature, and unsustainable in law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, along with the relevant statutory provisions and precedents cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the appellants themselves, by their conscious legislative act, have amended Rule 6 and Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973, which resulted in the regularisation of the respondents from the date of their initial appointment made on urgent/temporary basis under Rule 27 of the said Rules. Once such amendments were incorporated into the statutory scheme, the rights and benefits flowing therefrom became vested in the employees governed by those provisions. 8. This Court further observes that once the statutory amendments were made, the respondents were entitled to receive all consequential service and pensionary benefits in accordance with law. The doctors of the parallel departments, namely Homoeopathy and Unani, have already been extended identical benefits pursuant to similar provisions, and therefore, any departure in the case of Ayurved Chikitsaks would amount to discrimination. The expression “Regular Service”, relied upon by the appellants to restrict benefits, cannot be construed in a manner that nullifies the effect of statutory regularisation. Once regularisation has been granted by operation of statute, the element of discretion or administrative interpretation ceases to exist. Hence, denying to the respondents what has already been conferred upon similarly situated employees in the Homoeopathy and Unani departments would be unjust and impermissible. 9. This Court also observes that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has rightly concluded that any deviation from equal treatment amongst similarly situated employees would constitute a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The discriminatory denial of pensionary and ACP benefits to Ayurved Chikitsaks, while allowing the same to other branches of the same service, would be contrary to the fundamental principles of equality. The discriminatory denial of pensionary and ACP benefits to Ayurved Chikitsaks, while allowing the same to other branches of the same service, would be contrary to the fundamental principles of equality. This observation becomes even more pertinent considering that several respondents have already retired from service, and unsettling their accrued benefits at such a stage would result in serious hardship and inequity. 10. This Court further observes that once the Rules of 1973 clearly provide that regularisation and consequential benefits shall take effect from the date of first/initial appointment, any subsequent administrative attempt to curtail such benefit midway is not only contrary to the statutory mandate but also opposed to the cause of justice. The provisions of Rules 6 and 31, as amended, unequivocally establish that the respondents’ services stood regularised retrospectively from their initial appointment. Therefore, any attempt to deny ACP or pensionary benefits on the plea of “non-regular service” stands neutralised by the statutory scheme itself. 11. This Court further observes that the legislative intent, as reflected in the amendments to Rules 6 and 31 of the Rules of 1973 and in the operation of Rule 27 , was to remove the disparity between temporary/urgent appointees and regular selectees by granting the benefit of regularisation from the initial date of appointment. The conferment of identical benefits upon Unani and Homoeopathy doctors reinforces that the State itself has accepted the principle of retrospective regularisation as the basis for all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, in aligning the Ayurved Chikitsaks with their counterparts in the other two departments, is found to be just, equitable, and in consonance with law. 12. This Court also observes that the entire argument advanced on behalf of the appellants regarding the definition of “regular service” under Rule 5 (11) of the Rules of 2008 and its effect on the grant of ACP benefits loses significance in the present context. The said rule cannot override the statutory regularisation conferred upon the respondents under the Rules of 1973, which is a specific enactment governing their service conditions. Hence, the issue stands fully addressed by the statutory amendments, and no further adjudication on this aspect is required. 13. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or legal error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference under intra-court appellate jurisdiction. Hence, the issue stands fully addressed by the statutory amendments, and no further adjudication on this aspect is required. 13. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or legal error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference under intra-court appellate jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is well- reasoned, consistent with the statutory scheme, and grounded on sound principles of equality and fairness. 14. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed . All pending applications stand disposed of.