P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) All these writ petitions are founded on identical facts and afflictions of all of the petitioners are common, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by a common order.
(2.) Scorning the detailed factual matrix, suffice it to notice that in all these writ petitions petitioners have set out their case for desired reliefs on the anvil of their absorption in the respondent department upon declaring surplus by the Irrigation Department or Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited, a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking. For substantiating their claim of pay fixation in appropriate pay scales and all consequential benefits flowing from the said fixation, petitioners have taken shelter of Rule 26(1)(a)(ii) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'Rules of 1951') and Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules 1969 (for short, Rules of 1969').
(3.) A similar issue came up before the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Rajkumar Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5400/2015, decided on 12.04.2017) , wherein the incumbent-petitioner, on being declared surplus by the Irrigation Department, was absorbed on the post of Gram Sewak in the Panchayati Raj Department. The Coordinate Bench, while examining the matter threadbare and the true purport of Rule 26(1)(a)(ii) of the Rules of 1951 and Rule 14 of the Rules of 1969, observed as under: "A conjoint reading of the two rules, extracted herein above, would reflect that the case of the petitioner falls within the contemplation of Rule 26(1) under Clause(ii). A glance of Clause (ii), would reveal that it deals with an eventuality wherein the maximum of the scales of the new post is equal to the maximum of the old post, which is the case at hand. The stand of the petitioner that he was never given an option to opt for lower pay scales, is in dispute, therefore, he cannot be deprived of the right accrued to him in view of specific contemplation under communication/order dated 23rd January, 2001, which specifically provided for protection of pay of the petitioner on the substantive post.";