JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner had joined as Lecturer in English in Government College, Nagaur in November 1984. Since then he had been transferred from one college to another. He was transferred from Ramgarh to Dungarpur in September, 1988, to Gangapur City, to Deedwana, to Tonk and to number of other places from time to time. Initially in the year 1984 he was appointed in the scale of Rs. 700-1,600. The pay scales were revised to Rs. 2,200-4,000 in regard to Lecturers including the temporary lecturers as per the direction of the UGC. The petitioner was also fixed vide order dated 4.11.1988 in the said pay scale Rs. 2,200-4,000. The petitioner is being paid the basic minimum salary of Rs. 2,200/- p.m. It is the grievance of the petitioner that number of junior persons who were similarly appointed were getting much more pay than the petitioner. He has completed 12 years of service continuously. It is also one of the grievance that he was not being paid the salary for the summer vacation as well despite the judgment of the Supreme Court on this point. He made number of representations, but without any response. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000 as fixed by the department along with increment ever since his appointment. 2. It is the prayer of the petitioner to fix the petitioner in the revised pay scale and to pay him the salary under the regular pay scale of lecturer in the revised pay scale and to pay him the dearness allowances and other allowances as are being paid to the similarly situated persons. 3. It is also one of the prayer of the petitioner that he be regularised in service after considering the case of the petitioner in regard to extraordinary leave from 28.9.1988 to 31.10.1988 and for the period from 1.11.1991 to 19.1.1922. 4. The record has also been produced by the respondents. The petitioner was appointed under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1971 at Nagaur. He was transferred from Nagaur to Bharatpur in April 1985 as he was temporarily appointed, without any break after end of the session as it seems, he was again appointed vide order dated 5.7.1985 and posted at Bharatpur itself against the vacant post where he was already working. He was transferred from Nagaur to Bharatpur in April 1985 as he was temporarily appointed, without any break after end of the session as it seems, he was again appointed vide order dated 5.7.1985 and posted at Bharatpur itself against the vacant post where he was already working. While he was in service, another order was issued on 5.10.1985 and the petitioner was posted at Hindaun. Still vide another order dated 14.7.1986, the petitioner was again given an appointment and posted against a vacant post in Hindaun itself. The order was again repeated in October 1986 and in April 1987 and again in July 1987 the order of appointment was repeated. The petitioner was posted at Deedwana. So was the case in November 1987. In August, 1988, vide another order he was posted at Ramgarh Shekhawati against a vacant post. Still vide another order on 4.11.1988 he was sent to Sawai Madhopur, again in March 1989 to Ramgarh. 5. The petitioner was given repeated appointments from time to time, but without any break and was being posted on one station or the another. There is hardly any necessity to mention any further the repeated postings of the petitioner on various stations. 6. It seems that instead of allowing the petitioner to work regularly, during summer break, the petitioner used to be shifted. On fresh application fresh appointment was being given. However, it is not denied, as has been revealed from the record produced by the respondents, that the petitioner continued to work right from 1984 to up to date. 7. For the reason that no reply is forth-coming on record, nor any copy has been produced by.the respondent OIC who is appearing today in the court, the facts have been taken from the office file produced by the OIC. 8. 12 years have passed and the petitioner is still in the minimum pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000 which was the minimum pay scale revised in the year 1986. No increment has been given to the petitioner. 9. At the time of arguments, the respondent tried to defend the omission on the part of the respondent on the ground that in the year 1991-92 the petitioner had taken some leave and the leave period is still to be decided. This submission itself speaks of sorry state of affairs. No increment has been given to the petitioner. 9. At the time of arguments, the respondent tried to defend the omission on the part of the respondent on the ground that in the year 1991-92 the petitioner had taken some leave and the leave period is still to be decided. This submission itself speaks of sorry state of affairs. Even if the petitioner has taken any leave, medical or otherwise, or extraordinary, it is unimaginable that the respondent had failed to decide the leave case of the petitioner for last 8 years. Even otherwise, also the petitioner cannot be deprived of the complete salary including the dearness allowance etc. which is being paid to the other employees of the same status. To a question put by this court to the OIC appearing on behalf of the department to the effect that the petitioner is being deprived of the regular pay scale and the fixing of the increments only because of the reason that the leave case has not been decided and had there been no leave case pending, what would have been the position in regard to the fixation of pay of the petitioner. The OIC very fairly conceded that in that situation, the petitioner would have been paid the regular pay scale. 10. It is a hard case where for last 12 years, a teacher in a college is being harassed by not fixing his pay and is being given the minimum basic pay of Rs. 2,200/- ever since revision of the pay scales in 1986. There is hardly any defence or the explanation on behalf of the respondents for such a treatment to the petitioner. 11. It goes without saying that any employee and specially the teacher who is to impart education to the students, if he is physically and mentally not kept at peace, his personality would reflect on the students as well. Here is a case where the State should have acted fairly, justly and expeditiously for fixing of the pay of the petitioner teacher. It has not been done. Per-force the petitioner has approached this court. 12. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is appointed in a running pay scale, he was entitled to the allowances attached to the post as well. It has not been done. Per-force the petitioner has approached this court. 12. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is appointed in a running pay scale, he was entitled to the allowances attached to the post as well. The direction is required to be given to the respondents that the pay of the petitioner shall be refixed by allowing him all the allowances attached to the post and allowing him all the increments and the arrears shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. He has already worked for 12 years. The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation as well. 13. In case the exercise is completed within the stipulated period of three months, the petitioner shall not claim any interest on such arrear of pay, but if any further delay is caused in giving justice to the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @12% p.a. from the due date when the pay should have been fixed but not fixed till the actual payment. The department shall also fix the responsibility for such omission and lapse on any of the person dealing with the matter and may recover the interest and costs from such officer.With the above-said observations, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.Petition Allowed with costs. *******