VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the parties are not in dispute on the proposition that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication by this Court in the case of Phoola Ram Fageria Versus The State of Rajasthan and Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 305 of 2005, decided on 12th April, 2017, observing thus: "16. Taking note of the attitude of the State- respondents in not extending the benefits of upgraded UGC pay scales, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narain Sharma and Ors. (Supra), specifically observed that the benefits were to be extended to all similarly situated persons irrespective of the fact whether they came before this Court or not. This Court specifically observed that the State of Rajasthan is a welfare State and it is not an ordinary employer or a businessman or an industrialist or a shopkeeper, and therefore, ought to exhibit itself as a model employer. While allowing the writ application a cost of Rs.16,500/- was imposed on the State-respondents. 17. In the case of Kamal Singh Choudhary (Supra), another similarly situated employee, whose regularization was effected w.e.f. 1st July, 1992, was ordered to be provided UGC pay scales w.e.f. 23rd November, 1985, irrespective of his regularization as would be evident from the order dated 18th October, 2013, in SBCWP No.5458/2004. It is informed that the adjudication in the case of Kamal Singh Choudhary (Supra), has attained finality and he has been extended the benefits of UGC pay scales. 18. In the case of Laxmi Narain Sharma and Ors. (Supra), the controversy was examined in detail, observing thus: "9. When this Court has accepted that the Librarians working in the various Colleges of the Government of Rajasthan and Universities are entitled for the benefit of the upgraded UGC Pay Scales without there being any condition having been imposed of Ist Class or II Class Degree or PG Degree as we'll as Ist Or IInd Class Degree or Diploma in Library Science how it is permissible to the respondents to put these terms and conditions vide document (Annexure-R/1). When this Court has already accepted this claim of the Librarians for this upgraded UGC Pay-Scales and it has to be given to all the Librarians irrespective of the fact whether they came before this Court or not. The earlier writ petition had been filed by the Association and the judgment given therein was for all the Librarians. The stand taken by the respondents first; to get a separate order from this Court for this pay scale and secondly only those existing Librarians who are I Class or II Class Degree holders in academic or in Library Science are eligible for this benefit are wholly perversed and arbitrary. 10. The State Rajasthan is a welfare State and it is not an ordinary employer or a businessman or industrialist or a shopkeeper, has to exhibit itself as a model employer. It is not a case of the respondents that the benefits of the Judgment of this Court was given only to the Librarians who are possessing Ist or IInd class Degree or PC Degree in Library Science or in Academic. This Court puts this question to the learned counsel for the respondents and he is unable to give any reply to the same, In the absence of any reply to this question otherwise also it is very difficult to accept that this benefits were given only to those existing Librarians who are having Ist or IInd Class Degree in PG Academic only in Library Science. The respondents it is to be stated at the costs of the repetition have failed to produce any material on record that this upgraded UGC pay scale has been restricted by the UGC to those existing Librarians who are holding the Ist or IInd Class Degree or PG Degree in Academic and Ist or IInd Class Degree in Library Science. Unless it is established as a fact to the satisfaction of the Court that subject to the possessing of Degree of Ist or IInd Class in Academic and also in Library Science, this upgraded UGC pay scales cannot be given to the petitioners, the StateGovernment is not correct in its approach to restrict the availability of this benefit of upgraded UGC pay scales on the terms and conditions as given out in (Annexure-R1). 11. The whole approach of the respondents in this matter is not befitting to the officers of the welfare State. After this decision in fact, the respondents should have voluntarily extended the benefit of this upgraded pay scale to all the existing Librarians but the same had not been done. On the contrary, the respondents compelled the petitioners to approach this Court. 15. This Court has already decided identical matter but the benefits of the same are not given to the petitioners. The judgment of this Court dated 8.10.1990 is not given in an individual case. It is a declaratory judgment and the benefits of which are to be extended to all the existing Librarians and the Physical Education Teachers' working in the University and also in various Government Colleges or in the added Colleges affiliated to the Universities w.e.f. 1.4.1980. Despite of this declaratory judgment, the respondent State of Rajas than has not given same benefit to the petitioners. This declaratory judgment had attained the finality and the benefits there of were not restricted to existing Librarians subject to any condition but by passing the Order (Annexure-R1) the benefits of the same have been made subject to certain terms and conditions. It may be a case of committing the contempt of Court order. It is a different matter that no such process has been initiated so for this modification or alterations of the judgment of this Court by the respondents at their own. 16. As a result of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. It is hereby declared that the petitioners are entitled for the upgraded UGC pay scales i.e. Rs. 700- 1600 w.e.f. 1.4.1980. In case, after 1.4.1980, this upgraded pay scales are revised, the petitioners shall also be entitled for the revised pay scales.
(2.) The respondents are directed to revise and fix the pay of all the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 w.e.f. 1.4.1980 or from the date of their appointment whichever is later. In case, the pay scales are further revised, the respondents are directed to revise the pay of the petitioners as per the pay scales revised from time to time. The arrears of the Fixation of the pay are to be determined and paid to the petitioners accordingly. The petitioners shall also be entitled to get interest on the arrears on pay fixation @ 12% per-annum from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 1.12.1998. The amount of interest which is payable to the petitioners on the arrears pay fixation shall also be determined by the respondents. All this exercise are to be undertaken and completed by the respondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order." 19. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the case of the petitioner cannot be distinguished from that of Laxmi Narain Sharma and Ors., Ram Prasad Meena, Kamal Singh Choudhary as well as Tara Chand and Ors. (Supra), which have already been attained finality. Further, despite adjudication having attained finality, on the identical issue, in the case of Ram Prasad Meena (Supra), whose name appears along with petitioner in the very same impugned order to whom benefits of UGC pay scales were not accorded; has also been accorded benefits of UGC of pay scales, in view of adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The attitude of the State-respondents in declining the same relief to the petitioner, which has been accorded to identically situated employees is deprecated. 20. In the result, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The petitioner is entitled for upgraded UGC pay scales as well as selection scales in terms of the Scheme along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the writ application i.e. 10 th January, 2005, until payment. 21. The petitioner would also be entitled to a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand), to be recovered from the erring Officer."
(3.) Learned counsel for the parties further submit that the instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Phoola Ram Fageria (supra).;