- (1.) U. K. Dhaon, J. Heard Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the op posite parties 2 and 3.
(2.) THE petitioners in the instant writ petition initially prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature oimandamus command ing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners in the scale of Rs. 1,600- 2,600 w. e. f. 16-11-1993, i. e. the date since when the petitioners are continuously working as Research Assistant and to make pay ment of arrears regarding difference of pay with all consequential benefits. On 28-5-1999, the opposite parties were directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners dated 24-5-1999, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition keeping in view that the petitioners are con tinuously working from 16-11-1993 on the post of Research Assistant. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the opposite parties con sidered the representation of the petitioners dated 24-5-1999 and by the order dated 6-7-1999 the same was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners moved application dated 11-8-1999 for amendment of the writ petition which was allowed and now a prayer for quashing of the impugned order dated 6-7-1999 passed by the opposite party No. 2, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ peti tion has also been made.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that they are working continuously as Research Assis tant with effect from 16-11-1993 and as such they are entitled for their seniority and fixation of pay from 16-11-1993. He further submits that the services of the petitioners have been regularised with af fect from 20-3-1997 as per the order dated 3-12-1997 and the opposite parties are not considering the earlier services of the petitioners for the purposes of seniority although there is no dispute that the petitioners were working from 16-11-1993. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the apex Court reported in 1999 (9) Supreme 321; 2000 (1) LBESR 380 (SC), Ajit Kumar Ratha \. State oforissa and 1999 (8) Supreme 579, S. L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur. The petitioners earlier also ap proached this Court and filed writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 9048 (SS) of 1993 in which an interim order was passed by this Court directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to work and pay them salary regularly. The said interim order granted by this Courts was later on confirmed by this Court by the order dated 16-2-1996 and the application for vacation of the stay order was rejected by this Court.;