Veerendra Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE instant batch of the writ application raises a common question of law and facts, and therefore, is being taken up for adjudication by this common order.
(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 27th May, 2014, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. However, in order to grant yet another opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioners/petitioners, the matter was posted to 30th May, 2014, with an order to the effect that if none appears on the next date, the matter will be dealt with according to law, including proceedings ex -parte. Today i.e., on 30th May, 2014, neither the learned counsel for the petitioners nor any of the petitioners, is present in the Court to pursue the matter. No request for adjournment has been made either. Shorn off unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant batch of writ applications are required to be first noticed. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 1002 of 2006, are being taken note of as the lead case. The petitioners submitted their application forms, for consideration of their candidature, in response to the advertisement dated 27th February, 1999, issued by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Ajmer, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak -cum -Paden Secretary carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3200 -85 -4900 plus allowances. From the materials available on record, it is reflected that a general ban was imposed upon the appointment, which was later on lifted. The petitioners being successful in the selection process, were offered appointment to the post, in response to the advertisement aforesaid, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/ - (Rupees: One Thousand Two Hundred), as is reflected from the orders dated 27th October, 1999 (Annexure -R/1); 6th November, 1999, and 19th November, 1999 (Annexure -R/3). The petitioners were later on, confirmed after successful completion of probation period of two years against the aforesaid post, and were accorded regular pay scale of Rs. 3200 -85 -4900, with effect from 1st June, 2002. Aggrieved of grant of regular pay scale with effect from 1st June, 2002, instead of initial date of appointment i.e., 6th November, 1999, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for the relief(s) under the prayer clause, which reads thus: - I/Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature there of and there by direct the respondents to grant regular pay -scale 3200 -85 -4900 to the petitioner from date of his first appointment. II/Direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the difference between the salary paid during the period of probation to the petitioner on consolidated bases and the salary based on pay scale of Rs. 3200 -85 -4900 with all consequential benefits. III/Direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner interest @ 18% per annum on the difference between the salary paid to the petitioner and the salary based on pay scale Rs. 3200 -85 -4900. IV/Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of the litigation may also be awarded to the petitioner.
(3.) THIS Court while issuing notices to the state -respondents on 17th February, 2006, took note of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners claiming their entitlement for regular pay scale, from the date of their initial appointment or at least for notional fixation, placing reliance on the opinion of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Vohra & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:, 2005(1) WLC (Raj.) 264/;