Honble TIBREWAL, J. – Before approaching this Court the petitioner gave notice of demand for justice on 8.4.1996 through his counsel Shri Lokesh Sharma. This unnecessary litigation could have been avoided if the authorities had examined legal implication of its order dated May 17,1995 qua the petitioner and other similarly placed Class IV employees working in Sanskrit Education Department. (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4868/92 was filed before this Court on July 7, 1992, by the Union of the employees seeking regular pay-scale and regularisation of 82 part-time class IV employees who were working in different Primary/Middle Praveshika Sanskrit Schools of the State Government. Those 82 part-time employees were appointed on different dates, last one was appointed on 21.3.1990. The writ was allowed on 19.1.1991 and directions were given to the respondents to give regular pay-scale of a class IV employee with admissible dearness allowance. It was also directed to affix their pay at minimum of the pay-scale from the date of filing the writ petition. For regularisation of their services direction was given to consider their cases in accordance with the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruit- ment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 and all other circulars issued from time to time. No appeal was preferred by the State Government challenging the above judgment. On the contrary, pursuant to this judgment, the State Government issued an order on 17.5.1993 (Annexure 3) whereby services of all those part-time class IV employees were regularised with effect from 7.7.1992 giving them regular pay-scale of class IV services from that date. (3) While issuing the above order the State Government did not consider other part-time employees working in the same department and are similarly circumstanced, standing on better footing in comparison to some who were initially appointed on later dates. The petitioner is one of them, who has not been given si- milar treatment, as he was appointed as Class IV employee with effect from January 16, 1985. Since then he has been working but getting neither regular pay-scale nor regularisation of his services has been made. (4) The factual aspect is not disputed before me which clearly establish that 82 part-time class IV employees working in Sanskrit Education Department, who were initially appointed after 1985 till 21.3.1990, have been regularised in class IV services with effect from 7.7.1992. (4) The factual aspect is not disputed before me which clearly establish that 82 part-time class IV employees working in Sanskrit Education Department, who were initially appointed after 1985 till 21.3.1990, have been regularised in class IV services with effect from 7.7.1992. Discrimination to the petitioner and other part-time class IV employees appointed upto 21.3.1990 in not giving them similar treatment of regularising their services from 7.7.1992 is apparent. The plea taken by the respondents in their reply that regularisation of 82 part-time employees vide order dated 17.5.1993 was made under orders of the Court, hence the petitioner and other similarly placed employees are not entitled to get the same benefit is strange which cannot be justified at all. I fail to visualize this stand of the State Government. Is this stand permissible in law? The answer is clear in negative. The petitioner among others similarly placed or standing on better footing cannot be discriminated under the garb of courts order. Denial of benefit of regularisation to them from 7.7.1992 would be travisity of justice and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State Government while regularising services of 82 part-time employees, may be under orders of the Court, had a constitutional obligation to give similar treatment to other employees similarly placed. If the State Government was of the view that decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4868/92 was not correct, it could have challenged it by preferring an appeal but while implementing the order it could not discriminate others. (5) Alongwith this writ petition, a seniority list has been filed as Annexure 2. It shows petitioner to be at S.No. 18, while Mohan Lal S/o Ramji Lal, Dhanji s/o Manji and Ram Singh s/o Man Singh are at S. Nos. 28, 32, and 46 respectively. These persons have also been regularised from 7.7.1992 vide order dated 17.5.1993. (6) Experience shows that Government functionaries shirk in taking decisions at their level and leave aggrieved parties to obtain orders from the Courts. While doing so, they forget that on account of their non-action and examining the matters at their level, not only unwarranted work-load is increased on their Court and other courts, but is also causing loss of huge public money. This practice needs immediate check and if necessary, by taking action against such erring officers who shirk from their responsibility. While doing so, they forget that on account of their non-action and examining the matters at their level, not only unwarranted work-load is increased on their Court and other courts, but is also causing loss of huge public money. This practice needs immediate check and if necessary, by taking action against such erring officers who shirk from their responsibility. For a proper administration, it is now essential that `doctrine of accountability is made applicable to all. I hope and trust that the State Government shall take necessary steps in this direction. (7) Reverting to present case, it is clear that denial of regularisation in Class IV services and payment of regular pay-scale from 7.7.1992 to the petitioner and other employees appointed upto 21.3.1990 is arbitrary and discriminatory. It offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence, the petitioner and other similarly placed employees deserves to be given the same treatment like 82 employees who were given benefit of regular pay scale and regularisation from 7.7.1992 vide order dated 17.5.1993. (8) Consequently, the petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be given similar benefits of regularisation and regular pay-scale etc. from 7.7.1992 as given to other part-time employees vide order dated 17.5.1993 (Annexure 3). The respondents shall take necessary steps and arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within four months from today, failing which he shall be entitled to get interest on the amount @ 12% per annum. (9) I shall be failing in my duty if direction is not given for other part-time employees who are similarly placed. This is necessary to avoid unnecessary litigation before this Court. Otherwise also, being a welfare State, it is the duty of the State Government to give equal treatment to all its employees. It is, therefore, further directed that class IV employees, part/time or otherwise, working in Sanskrit Education Department and whose appointments have been made upto 21.3.1990, shall be regularised from 7.7.1992. 21.3.1990 is the date of initial appointment of the last class IV employee, who has been given benefit of regularisation vide order dated 17.5.1993. As the respondents failed to redress grievance of the petitioner inspite of notice of demand for justice, they are saddled to pay Rs. 1500/- as costs of this litigation. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary to the Government, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur for necessary compliance.