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 a Co-
(2.) ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP No. 12559/2014 (Dr. Suresh K. Verma and State of Rajasthan and Ors.), decided on 4 th October, 2016;
(3.) interpreting Regulation 13.1 of UGC Regulations of 2010, observing thus: "As per the provision aforesaid, contractual Teacher is entitled to get salary at par with gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. In view of the Regulations of 2010, respondents were under an obligation to pay salary to the petitioners as given therein. The petitioners cannot, however, claim gross salary at par with Assistant Professor from the date of their appointment but it can be from the date of enactment of the Regulations of 2010 i.e. 18.9.2010. The Regulations of 2010 seems to have been brought to save those who are appointed on contract. One should not be deprived to get at least gross monthly salary at par with regularly appointed Assistant Professor. The contractual employees would not be entitled to further benefit of increments and other benefits other than the gross monthly salary at par with regularly appointed Assistant Professor. The only reason given by the government to deny the benefit is in reference to the order of appointment on fixed remuneration. ;