JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings as well as the relevant documents, placed on the record. 2. The petitioners, who are members of the Employees' Association of the Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground inter-alia that a writ petition was filed earlier in this Court by one Shri Syed Shamim Ahmed, the present Secretary of the Association vide S.B. C.W.P. No. 320/72 challenging the alleged irregularities committed in the matter of confirmation of certain employees (LDC's) of the Rajasthan Secretariat. Direction was also sought from the Court to fix the inter-se seniority in the cadre of L.D.C's as per the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules 56'') and circular dated 8.10.69. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench against which Special Appeal was preferred vide D.B. Special Appeal No. 444/74, which was partly accepted by the learned D.B. of this Court vide it's Order dated 5.5.1980. The operative portion of the said order (dated 5.5.80), passed by the learned D.B. is reproduced for ready reference here-in-below: ''In the result, we partly accept the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition of the appellant. We hereby quash the confirmation order as L.D.C's of the respondents 3 to 145 (Annexures 3 to 10 of the writ petition). We direct the respondents 1 and 2 to fix the inter-se seniority of the appellant and the respondents in the cadre of L.D.C.'s as per 1956 rules and Circular dated October 8, 1969 in the light of observations made above. We leave the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.'' 3. This Court had further quashed the confirmation order of the L.D.C's and had further directed the State Government to fix the inter-se seniority of the appellant and further to the respondents to fix the petitioner suitably in the carder of L.D.C.'s, as per the Rules of 1956 and the circular dated 8.10.69 as referred to above. 4. It has further been contended by the petitioners' association that in compliance of the above judgment of the learned D.B., seniority list of the L.D.C.'s, working in the Rajasthan Secretariat at Jaipur was revised and as per the revised seniority list the review D.P.Cs. 4. It has further been contended by the petitioners' association that in compliance of the above judgment of the learned D.B., seniority list of the L.D.C.'s, working in the Rajasthan Secretariat at Jaipur was revised and as per the revised seniority list the review D.P.Cs. were also convened for considering the eligible candidates for promotion from U.D.C.'s to Section Officers, and revised promotional orders were also issued in pursuance of which the members of the petitioner-association were selected and promoted against the earlier vacancies as referred to in Column-5 vide (Annexure-2) 5. The grievance of the petitioner-association is that while completing the aforesaid exercise of revising the promotional quota of the eligible candidates, the members of the petitioner's association were not accorded benefits of pay fixation along with the arrears, if any, as due to them on the relevant date. Consequently several representations were made by the petitioner-association to the State Government vide Annexures-3 and 4 respectively. 6. That after examining the aforesaid representations, respondent No. 3 i.e. the Secretary of Personnel Departmental, Jaipur took the view that employees should be accorded regular pay fixation benefits in accordance with rules and opinion was also sought from the Finance Department. The Finance Department raised certain objections and the matter was referred to the Law Department of the State for its opinion in view of the judgment of the learned Tribunal and of this Court as referred to above. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon the opinion of the Law Department, which had categorically stated that the members of the petitioners'-association should not be discriminated with similarly situated persons in the matter of benefits, which may accrue to them on the basis of their pay-fixation subsequent to having received the promotions on the various posts. In this context it will be relevant to refer to the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 30.6.1981, passed in appeal No. 866/80 in the matter of Murlidhar Tehiliani v. State of Rajasthan. The operative part of the said observation is as under:- ''We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Standing Government Counsel. On the basis of ruling of the Supreme Court and High Courts. In number of cases we have ordered that Government servant cannot be denied the difference of pay on the post on which he was denied promotion for no fault of his own. On the basis of ruling of the Supreme Court and High Courts. In number of cases we have ordered that Government servant cannot be denied the difference of pay on the post on which he was denied promotion for no fault of his own. The plea that the Government servant did not actually work on that post has been dismissed by us as futile because the Government servant was deprived of opportunity to work on the higher post and the Government cannot take advantage of their own mistake and as such the Government servant has to be compensated for the loss of the benefit to which he was legally entitled but was denied on account of acts of omission and commission on the part of authorities. Despite these decisions in this case again a similar plea has been raised and we cannot but reject it summarily and hold that the appellant was denied promotion to the post of Assistant during the aforementioned period illegally and has to be paid as if he was promoted from the due date. The appeal is accepted and it is directed that the difference of pay shall be paid to him within a period of 3 months''. 7. The aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal came to be challenged by the State Government in S.B. C.W.P. No. 332/82 and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide its Order dated 30.8.1982, consequent to which the benefits of regular pay fixation were allowed to the members of the petitioners association in the aforesaid writ petition. Subsequently when the benefits of pay fixation were not allowed to 15 employees of the Secretariat Service, fifteen appeals bearing No. 291/82 and other connected appeals were filed before the learned Tribunal and the said appeals were accepted. 8. Subsequently when the benefits of pay fixation were not allowed to 15 employees of the Secretariat Service, fifteen appeals bearing No. 291/82 and other connected appeals were filed before the learned Tribunal and the said appeals were accepted. 8. In view of the impugned order/letter dated 8.4.1992 as well as the action of the State Government in not giving the benefits of the regular pay fixation to the members of the petitioner-association, the present writ petition was filed in this Court way-back on 9.3.1994 on the grounds inter-alia that the benefit of the judgment of the learned D.B. of this Court in the matter of Syed Shamim Ahmed and others v. State of Rajasthan (supra), which was allowed to similarly placed employees of the Rajasthan Secretariat, has not been given to other members of the petitioner- association, who are represented before this Court in the present writ petition. The petitioners have sought the relief of mandamus from this Court on the ground that the petitioners, who are similarly placed employees should not have been discriminated by the respondents in view of the impugned letter/order dated 8.4.1992 (Annexure-8) and consequently have sought the direction to the respondents to allow the regular benefits of pay fixation to all the members of the petitioner-association, who have not been given such benefits earlier as claimed in Column No. 6 of Annexure-2 along with the arrears as admissible to them in accordance with the rules. 9. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have in their reply to the writ petition while controverting the above contentions of the petitioner-association have contended inter-alia that the seniority list, which was revised vide the order dated 10.2.89 by the respondents was absolutely in accordance with the directions, earlier given by the learned D.B. of this Court and also by the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court given subsequently. They have further contended that the petitioner-association has further no right to claim the benefit on the basis of revised seniority retrospectively in view of the fact that the impugned seniority list was revised by the respondents keeping in view the directions of this Court in the D.B. Special Appeal as well as the judgment of the Apex Court and there is no locus for the petitioners to challenge the same on one pretext or the other. They have further contended that the opinion of the Law Department does not form any basis to allow the benefit of pay fixation since the judgment was not in rem but the judgment of the High Court was confined to a group of individuals and as such in personam and was applicable only in respect of those individuals only. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the pleading and the documents on the record. 11. Prima facie I am of the opinion that once the benefit of revised pay fixation has been given to some members of the petitioner-association, the respondents will not be justified in depriving the other similarly placed petitioners, who are also members of the same association and hence it is not open to the respondents to discriminate the said members of the petitioner-association, who are similarly placed employees. If this approach is not adopted, it would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I am of the view that once the benefit has been given to some members, it would be equally extended to other affected members of the petitioner-association vide Annexure-2 on the record. 12. The matter stands finally concluded by the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jitendra Kumar Sogani and others v. Sh. Syed Shamim Ahmed and others, vide Civil Appeal No. 12/83, decided by the said Court vide its order dated 8.8.1996. 13. In the said appeal before the Apex Court, the appellant had challenged the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 5.5.80, by which this Court had quashed the confirmation of the appellants in the cadre of L.D.C's. The Apex Court after finally examining the matter directed that the appellants shall be entitled to be considered for further promotion on the basis of their seniority and status in their existing posts, which they are holding without taking into effect the factum of their de- confirmation by the impugned order, passed by this Court, which was subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid appeal. 14. 14. Shri Bhandari, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents states that the State Government is examining the matter in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as referred to above and the direction of the said Court shall be implemented in its letter and spirit. 15. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the direction to the respondent to re-consider the case of those members of the petitioner-association, who have not yet been considered for further promotion on the basis of their seniority and status in their existing posts, which they are holding without taking to effect the factum of their de-confirmation by the impugned order passed by the respondents. The necessary exercise regarding pay-fixation and other benefits, which may be admissible to the members of the petitioner-association as per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jitendra Kumar Sogani and others (supra) as well as of this Court in the learned D.B. Judgement as referred to above should be carried out by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******