Judgment 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for direction on the Respondents to pay him salary in the prescribed scale of pay as revised, from time to time, since the date of appointment after adjusting the salary already paid and the amount payable. 2. The petitioner, a member of Scheduled Caste was appointed as Assistant Teacher after due advertisement and selection through a Committee, vide letter no. 630 dated 6th July, 1982. 3. In the order of appointment, while and others were shown to have been appointed in the then scale of Rs. 850- 1360/- at para 5 of the order, it was stipulated that the untrained candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in respect of them there will be break in service during the summer vacation and if no trained candidate is available, they will be reappointed and will get a fixed salary of Rs. 730/- per month of Untrained Graduate. The scale of pay will be provided on completion of training. 4. The Respondents in their counter affidavit while accepted the aforesaid fact taken plea that the petitioner would not be deemed to be in service during summer vacation in terms with order of appointment while it is accepted that the petitioner become trained, according to the respondents, on completion of such training, he is entitled to receive fixed salary of Rs. 1400/- per month and not the salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-, as prescribed under the Government Resolution No. 6022 dated 18th December, 1999. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher since his appointment made on 8.7.1982. There is no break in service, except the notional break shown during the summer vacation when the petitioner was not trained in terms with paragraph 5 of the order of appointment. Admittedly, the petitioner became trained in 1993 and even in pursuance of the order of appointment, it cannot be stated to be a break in service after such training. 6. in similar case of Ratan Lal V/s. State of Haryana and others, (A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 478), the Supreme Court, deprecated such nature of break during summer vacation and held the same violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. 6. in similar case of Ratan Lal V/s. State of Haryana and others, (A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 478), the Supreme Court, deprecated such nature of break during summer vacation and held the same violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of aforesaid decision, the 5th paragraph of the order of appointment dated 8th July, 1982 cannot be held to be good being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and first four lines relating to such break in service of said Paragraph no. 5 is set aside. The petitioner will be deemed to be in the service of the State without any break since 8th July, 1982. 8. So far as pay of petitioner is concerned, in order of appointment, it was stipulated that he will be getting fixed salary of Rs. 770/- per month, but it was made clear that on completion of such training, the petitioner will be getting the scale of Rs. 850-1360/- which has now been revised vide Resolution dated 18th December, 1989. 9. In the circumstances the Respondents are liable to pay the petitioners salary in the scale of pay, from the date the petitioner has become trained (1993) i.e. in the scale of Rs. 850-1360/- as revised from time to time. Such fixation to be made taking into account the earlier period of service rendered by petitioner since 8th July, 1982. 10. Accordingly, I direct the Respondents to pay the petitioner, his arrear salary for the period from the date of joining (1993), after adjusting the fixed salary already paid, as also the current salary within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, there being laches on the part of the petitioner, I am not allowing the wages for the months from, June, 1983 to 1992. 11. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.