JUDGMENT 1. - Shiv Ram Bohra, the appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment and order dated December 20, 1993 passed by a learned single Judge of our Court in S. B. Civil Writ Application No. 2034 of 1993 which was heard along with S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4828 of 1992 (Shyam Lal Partani v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board). In a group of 53 D. B. Special appeals we disposed of the appeal of Shyam Lal Partani v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others being D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 53/94 by our judgment dated December 12, 1996 and we held inter alia that the controversies which were raised in view of the various single Bench and Division Bench judgments of this Court have all been set at rest by the Division Bench judgment in Purshottam Lal's case D. B. Civil Writ petition No. 6916 of 1992, decided on June 3, 1994. It was held that since the appellants were amongst 85% of the candidates who were promoted only after appearing into the competitive examination which was held for the purpose of giving direct recruitment to existing employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, they are not entitled to their pay being fixed as L. D. C. on 1.4.1983. We expressed our agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Purshottam Lal's case. We further held that the case of the appellant for being governed by the Regulation 24A( 1) is also not in conformity with the facts. This Regulation was provided for the purpose of those who were in promotion channel and not for the direct recruits. No doubt the appellants were earlier in the services of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board but their induction into the cadre of L.D.Cs. were not through promotion but it was a direct recruitment. Since the direct recruits could not be dealt with in terms of the Regulation aforesaid, there was no merit in those appeals which was decided in that group of 53 Division Bench Special appeals in Shyam Lal Partani v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others. 2. were not through promotion but it was a direct recruitment. Since the direct recruits could not be dealt with in terms of the Regulation aforesaid, there was no merit in those appeals which was decided in that group of 53 Division Bench Special appeals in Shyam Lal Partani v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we find that the appellant even though initially appointed as a Peon and later on confirmed as such with effect from 20.5.1978, he was recruited as an L.D.C. from amongst the departmental employees by way of direct examination wherein he was declared successful and was appointed as L.D.C. vide order dated 24.6.1985. The pay scale in the said order was fixed to be Rs. 370-570. He joined his duty on 9.7.1985 with the emoluments as under:- Basic Pay Rs. 370.00 Dearness Allowance Rs. 411.50 Interim Relief Rs. 56.06 Total Rs. 837.56 It was claimed that after the arbitration award dated 7-8-1985 the pay scale of L.D.C. was increased from Rs. 370-530 to Rs. 530-950 but his monthly pay came to be as under:- Basic Pay Rs. 530.00 Dearness Allowance Rs. 282.70 Total Rs. 812.70 His contention was that in the said arbitration award it was specifically mentioned that there should be minimum advantage to an employee for a sum amounting to Rs. 35.80. However, his pay was reduced by an amount of Rs. 24.86 besides the petitioner facing a loss of minimum advantage of Rs. 35.80. Hence he was made to suffer a total loss of Rs. 60.66. He claimed benefit under Regulation 24A(1) of the Regulations known as Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1964 contending inter alia that if the maximum of the scale of the new post is higher than the maximum of the old post, then his pay shall be fixed at the stage of the time scale of the new post next above the last substantive pay in the old post. His contention inter alia was that he was entitled to be fixed at the stage of the time scale of the new post next above the last substantive pay in the old post i.e. maximum of the pay scale for the post of L.D.C. which was higher; than the maximum of pay scale for the post of Peon. His contention inter alia was that he was entitled to be fixed at the stage of the time scale of the new post next above the last substantive pay in the old post i.e. maximum of the pay scale for the post of L.D.C. which was higher; than the maximum of pay scale for the post of Peon. However, on the implementation of the new pay scale, his pay was reduced by Rs. 24.86 and he was denied the minimum advantage under the arbitration award i.e. of Rs. 35.80. His claim was that he was entitled to be fixed at Rs. 595 plus Dearness Allowance. 3. Since we have already held in our judgment in Shyam Lal Partani v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others being D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 53 of 94 which was decided along with 52 other connected cases upholding the self same judgment dated December 20,1993 as passed by the learned single Judge in a bunch of S. B. Civil Writ petitions, the case of the appellant for being governed by Regulation 24a(l) will not be in conformity with the facts. The appellant's promotion was not by way of departmental promotion in regular course but then he was made eligible to appear as a direct recruit from amongst the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Class IV employees. Once he passed the examination and was successful thereat, he got a fresh appointment in accordance with law and his case would not be treated as one inducted into cadre of L.D.C. through promotion, but he was deemed to be a direct recruit who would not be entitled to the benefit of Regulation 24A( 1). 4. In that view of the matter there is no substance in the present appeal and it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******