JUDGMENT 1. - The brief questions with which this court has to address itself in the instant writ petition are (i) as to whether in view the policy of the State Government as indicated in its circular issued by the Finance Department of the State dated 01/06/1970 as per which those teachers who had acquired the Basic Senior Teacher Training (for short "BSTC") qualification during the course of their service tenure w.e.f. 14/09/1961 are entitled to the benefit of two advance grade increments with effect from the said date in accordance with Rule 8(c)(iii) of the Revised Pay Scales Rules, 1961? and if so whether it is open to them to challenge the policy of the State Government as unfolded through Education Department of the State being arbitrary, unjust and illegal since it tends to discriminate the petitioner qua those similarly placed other teachers who though did not possess the "B.S.T.C." qualification initially at the time of joining service, had acquired the same during the course of their service tenure? 2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated that are the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of teacher grade III vide order, dated 3.8.1959 at the Government Primary School, Chiplota District Sikar under the administrative control of the District Education Officer, Sikar and he joined his duties on the said post w.e.f. 08.08.1959. At the time of appointment of the petitioner, he was having qualification of matric (10th class) which he passed from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1959 and was also having additional qualification of diploma in Tailoring which was issued from a recognised Institution. Thereafter the petitioner on the basis of specific permission of the department was sent for training of "BSTC" at the training school, Ramgarh, Sethan and he was relieved from duty for the said purpose on 13.07.1960 and was also granted monthly scholarship of Rs.25/- which he continue to get upto 07.05.1961. Thereafter while remaining at Panchayat Samiti, Khandela on transfer, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the department vide order, dated 27.04.1962 but after the departmental enquiry, since he was exonerated of the charge, he was consequently reinstated in service by an order dated 04.10.1963 in view of his exoneration in terms of order dated 22.01.1968. Thereafter while remaining at Panchayat Samiti, Khandela on transfer, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the department vide order, dated 27.04.1962 but after the departmental enquiry, since he was exonerated of the charge, he was consequently reinstated in service by an order dated 04.10.1963 in view of his exoneration in terms of order dated 22.01.1968. The Controlling authority of the petitioner was the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad and since he stood transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Khandela vide order, dated 06.01.1972 and thereafter on 12.01.1972 in the office of Inspectorate of Schools which he joined w.e.f. 13.01.1972, the services of the petitioner were again transferred from the Panchayat Samiti to the Education Department of the State Government while remaining in the Middle School, Dhansrole and since then he has been serving in the Education Department of the State Government. 3. Subsequently by an order dated 12.01.1997, on the basis of an order issued by the erstwhile department of Panchayat Samiti, Khandela, District Sikar two advance grade increments were granted to the petitioner of Rs.10/- (Rs.5/- each) per month in accordance with the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1961 by which the petitioner had also exercised his option and which was accepted by the department in accordance with the Rules of 1961. The benefit of the said two advance grade increments w.e.f. 08.08.1962 was conferred on the petitioner since he was BSTC trained teacher which was decided by the department to be given only to those candidates who had completed the said course on or before 14.09.1961 and since the petitioner had obtained the requisite qualification from the relevant date, he was rightly conferred the said benefit of two advance grade increments w.e.f. 08.08.1962. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined their rival claims and contentions with specific reference to the relevant rules on the subject. 5. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined their rival claims and contentions with specific reference to the relevant rules on the subject. 5. Prima-facie, I am of the view that in accordance with Rule 8(c) (iii) of the Rules if a Government servant is holding a permanent post in a substantive capacity and has exercised his option to continue in the existing pay scale he will definitely be entitled to all the consequential benefits of service including the benefits of revised pay scales, Dearness Allowance and other benefits which may be admissible in accordance with the rules and will further he also entitled to the protection of service conditions under the Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service Conditions) Rules, 1957 (for short "the Rules of 1957) and subject to the fulfilment of the requisite conditions as prescribed in the said Rules, the said employee will also continue to draw all those benefits which are admissible to other similarly placed employees of the State Government from whom any option is invited by the department in this regard. 6. From the perusal of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules of 1961 it is apparent that the intention of the legislature was that those Government servants who are entitled for the benefit of revised pay scales in view of their length of service should be brought over to the revised pay scales who exercised their option for the same except those who would like to continue in the existing pay scales and such employees who exercised their option for the benefit of revised pay scales, in my considered view should also he held entitled for the benefit of revised pay scales and such other consequential benefits of Dearness Allowance, advance grade increments etc. and they are obviously entitled for the protection of their service conditions in accordance with the Rules of 1957 as well as Rules of 1961, as referred to above. It may however, be noted in this regard that as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1961 it i~ mandated that those employees who are willing to exercise their options for the benefit of the revised pay scales or the additional benefits of advance grade increments etc. It may however, be noted in this regard that as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1961 it i~ mandated that those employees who are willing to exercise their options for the benefit of the revised pay scales or the additional benefits of advance grade increments etc. should not exercise their option within the specified time limit but should also ensure that it reaches the prescribed authority within the time limit and since in the instant case the petitioner had exercised his option for the benefit of the two advance grade increments which were admissible to him with effect from the due date i.e. w.e.f. 08.08.1902 and since the petitioner had also acquired the requisite qualification of "BSTC" trained teacher w.e.f. 14.09.1961 during the service tenure with the respondents, it is not open to the respondents not to extend the aforesaid benefits to the petitioner. Since he is not seeking any charity or compassion from the respondents but he is claiming only those benefits which are admissible to him in accordance with Rules. Hence the petitioner having been rightly been conferred the benefit of two advance grade increments w.e.f. 08.08.1962, in my view should not have been deprived of the same. 7. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondents have not specifically controverted the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the admissibility of the benefits of two advance grade increments as admissible to the petitioner in accordance with Rules of 1961 since the petitioner had admittedly acquired the BSTC Training Certificate prior to the relevant date, i.e., 14.09.1.961 and was consequently entitled for the benefit of two annual grade increments after making his pay fixation by the department. However, learned counsel for the respondents stated at the bar that due to some official mistake, inadvertence and oversight an order was issued on 12.01.1977 by which two advance grade increments were again sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had already been extended the benefits since he had passed BSTC prior to 1961 and hence the order, dated 12.01.1977 was issued erroneously and hence the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of two advance increments for the second time. 8. The petitioner had already been extended the benefits since he had passed BSTC prior to 1961 and hence the order, dated 12.01.1977 was issued erroneously and hence the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of two advance increments for the second time. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject in accordance with the rules as referred to above. I am of the view that the petitioner deserves t succeed and it is not a case where any additional benefit has been conferred can the petitioner twice over as so contended by the respondents since no such position is borne out from the relevant documents placed on the record. 9. As a result of the above discussion the writ petition is allowed and accordingly the impugned order dated 02.02.1977 (Annexure-2/A) is quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******