JUDGMENT 1. - A common question arises for consideration in all the three writ petitions and accordingly are being disposed of by this common order. These writ petitions further appear to have been filed in succession to some other writ petitions bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1740/90 (Ramesh Kumar Sharma V. State of Rajasthan & anr.) , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 741/93 (R.S. Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition 1048/94 (M.D. Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr.) which already stand decided by this court on various dates. The action of the respondents in all these writ petitions had been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that although they have worked on the post of Joint Director in Agriculture Department and stood promoted by an order passed in the year 1989 from the year they were entitled for promotion which is 1984-85 in the case of Ramjilal Verma in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2892/93 and 1985-86 in the case of J.N. Singh in S.B.C.W.P. No. 5424/92 and S.G. Bhatt in S.B.C.W.P. No. 4084/93, yet they have been denied the arrears of pay for those years during which they worked on the post of joint Director although it was ordered that the pay will be fixed according to the rules which was applicable for the post of joint Director. 2. A little elaboration of the facts would reveal the precise controversy involved herein. The petitioners Ramjilal Verma and S.G. Bhatt prior to the promotion on the post of joint Director had been working as Deputy Director from 31.3.85 and petitioner J.N. Singh from 6.11.85. Thereafter, a decision was taken by the departmental promotion committee and all the petitioners were given promotion on the post of joint Director against the promotion quota of the year 1984-85 in the case of petitioner Ramjilal Verma and from the year 1985-86 in the case of petitioners J.N. Singh and S.G. Bhatt on the recommendations of the departmental promotion committee. An order was later on issued by the respondent-State that the officers who were promoted against the promotion quota of the earlier years will not get actual promotional benefits i.e. arrears of salary for the higher post in case they are not found to have actually worked on the post. An order was later on issued by the respondent-State that the officers who were promoted against the promotion quota of the earlier years will not get actual promotional benefits i.e. arrears of salary for the higher post in case they are not found to have actually worked on the post. Vide order dated 30.11.89 the pay of the petitioners was fixed on the post of joint Director, but they were given only the notional benefit and were not given arrears of the difference of fixation of salary for the period from 6.11.85 to 29.11.89 in case of J.N. Singh and from 31.3.85 in case of petitioner Ramjilal Verma and from 31.3.85 in case of petitioner S.G. Bhatt. 3. The petitioners felt aggrieved with the fact that although they have worked on the post of Joint-Director alongwith others who were allowed the salary for such post, have been denied the arrears of pay for such post which is contrary even according to the order of the respondents date 30.11.89. The petitioners, therefore, were compelled by the circumstances to approach this Court and it appears that the similarly situated persons had already approached this Court for a decision on similar grounds. One such matter was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1740/90 dated January 29, 1991. The learned Judges of the Division Bench on consideration of similar facts, which is involved herein, were ultimately pleased to hold that even according to the order dated 30.11.87 (Ex. 7) in the said case, it was accepted that only those persons, who did not work on the post of joint Director would be disentitled for arrears of salary. 4. It has, however, been submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that in view of the provisions of sub-rule 11-A of Rule 25-A the Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules') even if the promotion is given on a subsequent date with retrospective effect, the said rule does not permit grant of arrears of salary, and thus it has been submitted that unless the petitioner challenges such rule and the rule is declared ultra vires, such benefit should not be granted to the petitioners. In the judgment and order referred to hereinabove delivered by the Division Bench it has been held that it is not essential to consider the challenge to the vires of sub-rule 11-A of Rule 25-A of the relevant rules as even according to the order of the Government dated 30.11.89 only those persons were held in-eligible for arrears of salary who had not worked on the post, and since the petitioners admittedly worked on the post of joint Director they ought to be held entitled for arrears of salary. This judgment was subsequently followed in several writ petitions viz S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1048/93 (M.D. Sharma V. State of Rajasthan) decided on 16.3.94 and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 741/93 (R.S. Saini V. State of Rajasthan) decided on 27.8.93 by learned Single Judge of this Court and similar relief has been granted to those persons also. It has, therefore, rightly been submitted that any departure from the view already taken by this Court on the question involved would result in unjust discrimination to the petitioners. A quarry was made from the Government Advocate as to whether an appeal has been preferred before any Court challenging the Division Bench judgment on the ground that such decision could not have been taken without considering the legal validity of such rule. It has been informed that there is no appeal pending before any Court against the aforesaid judgments and orders. Even otherwise, if the order of the Government dated 30.11.89 itself accepts a position that in case a Government servant has worked on the promoted post and subsequently he has also been held to have been promoted from the back date, then the arrears of salary cannot be denied to him, I fail to appreciate how the consequential relief can be denied to the petitioners. In view of this position, the objections raised on behalf of the respondents are not fit to be sustained. The impugned order denying arrear of salary to the petitioners, therefore, is contrary to the order of the Government itself and if the respondents themselves thought it proper not to resort to sub-rule 11-A of Rule 25-A which prima facie appears to be arbitrary the petitioners cannot be denied the actual promotional benefits which action is bound to give rise to hostile discrimination. Thus, relying on the judgment of this Court delivered in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1740/90 and followed thereafter in S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No. 1048/94 and 741/93, these writ petitions are fit to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 8.2.90 in the case of petitioner Ramjilal Verma, Ex. 3 dated nil in case of petitioner J.N. Singh and dated 28.12.89 in the case of petitioner S.G. Bhatt are quashed to the extent it denies arrears of salary from the actual date of promotion. 5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the petitioners shall be paid the arrears of salary for the post of joint Director from the date they have been held to have been promoted and functioned. There is no order as to costs.Petitions allowed. *******