[2025:RJ-JP:49197] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7569/2021 1. Dr. Jitendra Yadav S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o C-63, Hasan Khan Mewat Nagar Alwar. 2. Dr. Pardeep Singh S/o Shri Roshan Lal Yadav, Aged About 46 Years, R/o B-604, Veera Garden Ambedkar Nagar Alwar 301001. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Department Of Animal Husbandry Government Secretariat Jaipur (Rajasthan)- 302006. 2. Director, Animal Husbandry Department Rajasthan, Tonk Road Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302015. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Sharma Mr. Manik Kaswam for Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 03/12/2025 Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controvery involved in this writ petition has been considered and decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Lajja Ram Meena vs The Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13147/2016) and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Dr. Vaishali Biradar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & [2025:RJ-JP:49197] (2 of 3) [CW-7569/2021] Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4069/2022) decided on 04.07.2022, wherein it has been held as under: “It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issued raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order passed in Dr. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Anr.: SBCW No. 3375/2005, decided on 18.01.2007 and, therefore, the present petition may also be allowed in light of and with the similar directions as given in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by order in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar (supra). In the case of Dr. Anil Kumar (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court, inter alia, observed and directed as under: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioners earlier filed a writ petition being SBCWP No. 2070/2000, which came to be dismissed on 19.7.2000 against which the petitioners preferred a special appeal before the Division Bench being D.B. Civil Sepcial Appeal No. 973/2000 along with some other persons. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1091/2000 and 10 others which includes the special appeal filed by the present petitioners being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 758/2000 came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18.4.2002 wherein the Government was directed not to discontinue the services of the appellants therein. Thus, in view of the decision of the Division Bench, the services of the petitioners could not be discontinued and in continuity of the services, the petitioners are entitled for notional benefit though for that period they did not work, and, therefore, they are not entitled for the pay and allowances for that period. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, the petitioners are entitled for notional benefit. By orders Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 the period of absent that according to the learned counsel for [2025:RJ-JP:49197] (3 of 3) [CW-7569/2021] the petitioners from 30.6.2000 to 18.4.2002 has been considered Dies Non and therefore, it amounts to be break in service. This runs contrary to the decision of the Division Bench which in clear terms directed the Government not to discontinue the services of the appellants petitioners but meanwhile the petitioners are in continuity in service and therefore, for that period also though petitioners are not entitled for pay and allowances but they are certainly entitled for notional benefit. In this view of the mater the orders Annexure-3, 4 and 5 deserve to be quashed and the services of the petitioners during the period, they did not work are treated to be continued in service in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs”. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is also allowed in light of and with the similar directions as given in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar (supra) and the order dated 15.06.2004 (Annex.-5) and 07.04.2005 (Annex.-6) are quashed and set aside. The services of the petitioners during the period, they did not work are treated to be continued in service in view of the decision of the Division Bench.” Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of in view of judgment passed in the case of Dr. Vaishali Biradar(supra). All the pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J HEENA/21