‘Elevating form over substance’: Rajasthan HC counts Ayurved doctors’ pre-regularisation contractual service for pension

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Ayurved doctors engaged by the State on a “contractual” basis from 2002-2004, and later absorbed into regular service in 2015, must have their entire period of service counted towards pension, privilege leave and other retiral benefits. A division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma delivered the ruling on 23 April 2026 while dismissing a special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan.

The dispute goes back to advertisements issued by the Department of Ayurved in 2001 and 2003 for appointment of Ayurved Chikitsaks in rural dispensaries. The engagement was described as purely contractual on a fixed monthly remuneration. Twenty-seven doctors, led by Vijay Kumar Joshi, were appointed on this basis in 2002 and 2004.

In 2008, the State framed the Rajasthan Rural Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules. A fresh round of recruitment began, but successive selection processes were set aside in court. The doctors continued working under interim protection granted by the High Court. They were finally issued substantive appointment orders on 25 August 2015, after a decade or more of uninterrupted service.

The 2015 appointment orders placed them on a fresh two-year probation on fixed remuneration and refused to count their pre-2015 service for pension, gratuity, arrears or earned leave. Some doctors were approaching retirement without meeting the minimum qualifying service for pension. They moved the High Court, and a Single Bench allowed their writ petition on 2 September 2024. The State filed the present special appeal.

Additional Advocate General N.S. Rajpurohit contended that the initial engagement was purely contractual and did not amount to appointment to a substantive, officiating or temporary post. He relied on Rule 2(e) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which excludes persons employed on contract from the pension scheme unless the contract itself provides otherwise.

The State argued that the 2015 appointment was a fresh recruitment and not a regularisation. It relied on Rule 13 of the Pension Rules, which requires service to be paid from the Consolidated Fund, and on Rule 17, which excludes service paid from a contract establishment allowance. The State also invoked Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which fixes a two-year probation from the date of substantive appointment on fixed remuneration.

Senior Advocate M.S. Singhvi, assisted by Advocates Abhishek Mehta and Chirag Kalani, submitted that the “contractual” label was a device used by the State to deny regular pay and benefits. He argued that the appointments were effectively on an urgent temporary basis under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Service Rules, 1973, which did not contemplate contractual engagement. The doctors had always been paid from the State treasury against sanctioned cadre posts and had discharged duties identical to regularly appointed employees.

He relied on Supreme Court rulings in K.S. Pundir v. State of H.P., State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi, Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, which have held that long and continuous temporary service followed by regularisation must be counted for pension.

The Court held that the 2002/2004 engagement was, in substance, an appointment on an urgent temporary basis. It noted that the Rules of 1973 governing the service did not even envisage contractual appointments. The State had nonetheless conducted a selection process and placed the doctors against sanctioned posts. In the Court’s view, this amounted to a temporary appointment that ultimately merged into regular service in 2015, without any break.

The bench observed: “Exclusion of the services rendered by the respondents-petitioners from the years 2002/2004 till 2015 for the purposes of pensionary benefits would result in a travesty of justice.” In practical terms, this meant the doctors could not be pushed below the minimum qualifying service for pension simply because the State had used a “contractual” label.

The Court then read Rule 2(e) of the Pension Rules, 1996 alongside Rule 3(r), which defines qualifying service, and Rule 12(b), which requires qualifying service to count from the date a government servant first takes charge, whether substantively, officiating or temporarily. It held that Rule 2(e) only excludes employees who continue purely on contract. Where a contractual employee is later regularised without interruption, Rule 3(r) read with Rule 12(b) brings the earlier period within qualifying service. The Court also noted that the salaries had been drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State, which knocked out the State’s reliance on Rules 13 and 17.

On the fresh 2015 probation, the Court was blunt: “To hold otherwise would amount to elevating form over substance and ignoring the actual nature and continuity of service rendered by them.” The Court said probation is meant to assess suitability, and the State had already assessed these doctors over more than a decade of satisfactory service. Starting the probation clock again in 2015 would defeat the purpose of the rule.

On privilege leave, the Court applied Rule 95 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which entitles a temporary employee later appointed substantively without interruption to privilege leave for the earlier period. The doctors, the Court said, squarely fell within that rule.

The division bench dismissed the State’s special appeal and upheld the Single Bench judgment dated 2 September 2024. The State must count the doctors’ service from 2002/2004 for pension and qualifying service; grant them privilege leave for the entire period from joining; refix their pay; pay arrears from the date of joining in 2015; and extend the same relief to doctors who retired during the pendency of the case. All pending applications were dismissed.

Case details