JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent Pradeep Gaur had filed an Appeal before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal against the present petitioners for direction of fixing the pay of respondent No.1 in the time scale mentioned in that Appeal Annexure -3, by treating him as an existing employee under the Revised Pay Scale Rules 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rules 1976') and for a direction to pay to respondent whatever amount accrued to him with Interest w.e.f. 1.9.90. 2. The Tribunal vide order Annexure -5, after going through respective case of parties came to a finding and gave a direction to petitioners to refix the pay of petitioner in accordance with the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1976. 3. It is noticed by Tribunal that respondent No.1 appellant before the Tribunal was earlier working as Store Munshi and had qualified examination held by RPSC and w.e.f. 7.8.89 he was to be considered as a LDC. It is stated that the Rules, 1976 provides for jump of pay for the reason that the pay scale of Store Munshi and LDC were equal and in case he would have not qualified the examination of LDC and would have remained work charge, even then, he was entitled to the benefit of jump of pay as per Rules, 1976. The contention of petitioner is that the respondent No.1 do not fall under the category of existing employee and the Appeal was not acceptable by Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal has gone into the matter, in detail and had only directed the petitioner to refix the pay of respondent No.I in accordance with law. No interference is called for at this stage by this Court. 5. In similar circumstances almost in similar type of case of a work- charge Store Munshi as well as of LDC, a Division bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 756/96 decided on 15.5.9- had held that even the work- charge employees were entitled to be fixed in new pay scale under the Rules, 1976 for initial jump. It was observed as under : "The learned Single Judge before whom the Writ application has been after hearing the writ petitioner respondent and the State held that since the Writ petitioner on his continuance as a Munshi in the work-charge cadre would have been entitled for a jump. It was observed as under : "The learned Single Judge before whom the Writ application has been after hearing the writ petitioner respondent and the State held that since the Writ petitioner on his continuance as a Munshi in the work-charge cadre would have been entitled for a jump. If he would have been entitled for a jump if he would have continued as such under the Revised New Pay Scales, he could not be deprived thereon merely because he was later on transferred as L.D.C., or was appointed as an L.D.C. on conversion of more than 100 posts from work charge status to regular establishment. According to the learned Single Judge, "Existing employee" means an employee whether appointed under the Work Charge Rules or order the regular establishment. If the Writ petitioner would have been entitled for the "jump" even if he would have continued as Munshi, and if he had been transferred /appointed as an L.D.C. as aforesaid and if the jump as available on the basis of his pay was refixed under the Rules, no illegality was committed and his pay could not be reduced and he could not also be asked to refund any amount as a result of the fixation or of the jump." "We have examined the proposition carefully and heard at length the arguments of Mr. P.K. Sharma, the learned Advocate for the Writ petitioner respondent who contended that under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised New Pay Scales) Rules, 1976, also, he could be deemed an "existing Government Servant" within the meaning of Rule 5(2) of the said Rules. It is admitted by both the learned Advocates for the State as well as for the Writ petitioner that the same table would operate as was applicable in the case of work -charge employees under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised New Pay Scales) Rules, 1976, and if the existing pay scales do operate in the same manner, we have no hesitation in holding in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner respondent, would have been entitled to the same benefits of a jump for the pay scale irrespective of a change of his position from the work-charge employee to that of a permanent L 1). C. under the new set up. He did not derive the benefit of a jump as a work charge Munshi. C. under the new set up. He did not derive the benefit of a jump as a work charge Munshi. We cannot find fault with the reasoning as given by learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ application and granting the benefit to the writ petitioner respondent so as to strike down the office order and the Government Circular impugned in the Writ application." 6. The facts and points involved in the present case are identical to above quoted judgment, and therefore, the present Writ petition has no merit and no illegality can be found in the impugned order of Tribunal. 7. With the abovesaid observations, the Writ petition is dismissed in limine.Petition dismissed. *******