JUDGMENT 1. - The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner was justified in calculating the paying the amount of gratuity to the petitioner only on the basis of his basic pay by excluding the Dearness Allowance and other admissible allowances which the petitioner was drawing while he was in service. From the records of this case, it transpires that this question came up for consideration before the Principal Seat of this High Court at Jodhpur whereby a learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench held that in addition to Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance and Ad hoc Dearness Allowance last drawn by the employee also shall have to be added while calculating the amount of gratuity payable to the retired employee of the Rajasthan Agriculture University. It further appears that the Rajasthan Agriculture University had challenged this order before the Supreme Court and the learned Judges therein by a well-considered judgment and order dated 4.5.1999 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2162/96 delivered in the case of Rajasthan Agriculture University v. Ram Krishna Vyas, reported in 1999 AIR SCW 1612 upheld the view of the High Court to the effect that Dearness Allowance will have to be added to the basic pay and other allowance of the employee while computing the amount of gratuity payable to the employee. In spite of this direction, the petitioner has been subjected to a differential treatment as his claim for gratuity including the amount of Dearness allowance to his basic pay did not meet with approval before the University authorities as his notice for demand of justice dated 8.1.2002 was neither responded nor the full amount of gratuity was paid to him. 2. To specify the aforesaid position, a slight enumeration of the facts of the case of the petitioner are recorded to the following effect: 3. The petitioner was serving as a Professor in the Rajasthan Agriculture University which was established in the year 1987 with its headquarter at Bikaner and the petitioner, who was earlier working in the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University of Udaipur, was transferred to the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. After successful completion of his tenure he retired from the service of the University on 30.4.1992. His retiral benefits were thereafter calculated and was paid to him. The amount of gratuity to the extent of Rs. After successful completion of his tenure he retired from the service of the University on 30.4.1992. His retiral benefits were thereafter calculated and was paid to him. The amount of gratuity to the extent of Rs. 32,250/- was also paid to the petitioner. This amount was paid on the basis of the basic pay drawn by the petitioner which was Rs. 4700/-. The petitioner felt aggrieved of this amount as the amount of gratuity was calculated without including the amount of Dearness Allowance of Rs. 2,149/- which the petitioner was admittedly drawing from the respondent-University at the time of his retirement. The petitioner's claim was that the Corrigendum dated 21.3.1987 issued by Mohan Lal Sukhadia Agriculture University, Udaipur should be held to have been adopted by the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and in view of the aforesaid Corrigendum, the gratuity amount should have been calculated by including the Dearness Allowance also. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 53,933/- by way of gratuity and since he has been paid Rs. 35,250/- out of this, he was entitled to a further sum of Rs. 18,683/- along with interest on this amount as the same was wrongly deducted while computing the amount of gratuity. The petitioner further claimed certain amounts by way of interest on his Employees Provident Fund contribution @ Rs. 890/- and he has urged that he is entitled to receive the said amount from the respondents along with interest. He further alleged that when his demand for payment of these amounts was not responded by the respondent-University, he also sent a notice for demand of justice on 28.1.2002 through his counsel but the University authorities failed to re- act even to this, for although they did not reject it, they have also not paid any amount in response to this notice. Hence, he was compelled to move this Court for the required payment as he is a retired person who has attained 69 years of age. 4. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the counsel for the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents as arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable by contending that the disputed point having been resolved by the judgment of the Apex Court referred to herein above, the due payment should have been paid to the petitioner expeditiously. 5. 4. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the counsel for the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents as arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable by contending that the disputed point having been resolved by the judgment of the Apex Court referred to herein above, the due payment should have been paid to the petitioner expeditiously. 5. The counsel for the respondent-University was called upon to explain the denial of payment by the University to the petitioner but nothing could be elicited from him as to why the payment could not be made to the petitioner although the controversy itself had been set at rest upto the stage of the Supreme Court. An order from this Court in this regard by entertaining this writ petition has, therefore, become essential. In fact, the claim of the petitioner regarding the payment of balance amount of gratuity by including dearness allowance to his salary, could not have been denied by the University in view of its own corrigendum dated 21.3.1987, which although was technically issued by the Mohan Lal Sukhadia Agriculture University, Udaipur, the same will be deemed to have been adopted by the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner also as it is evident from the resolution of the meeting of the Board of the Management of the respondent-Rajasthan Agriculture University dated 20.5.1980 that the respondent-University had adopted the statutes of the Mohan Lal Sukhadia Agriculture University, Udaipur and, therefore, the University of Udaipur (Sukhadia University) Payment of Gratuity to Employees' Rules (1979) are completely applicable to the employees of the respondent-University. This was the view expressed by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court also in their judgment and order referred to hereinbefore and hence the petitioner who retired after 1980 on 30.4.1992, by any yardstick, could not have been denied the effect of adoption of the resolution which entitled inclusion of dearness allowance while determining the amount of gratuity payable to the retired employees of the respondent-University. The learned judges, of the Apex Court had also rejected the contention of the Rajasthan Agriculture University to the effect that the Board of Management of the respondent University by a resolution dated 12.5.1988 had adopted increase in the payment of gratuity to the employees and hence benefit of dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance while calculating the amount of gratuity should not be included. The learned Judges, therefore, in no uncertain terms had laid down therein that while calculating the total emoluments payable to the retired employees for the purpose of gratuity will calculate it not only on the basis of basic pay but it will also include the dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance. The amount of gratuity, therefore, had to be paid by including these amounts also. 6. The controversy, in this regard was thus resolved by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court as already stated hereinbefore by its judgment and order dated 4.5.1999, but in spite of the dispute having been resolved, the respondent-Rajasthan Agriculture University failed to respond to the claim of the petitioner and forced him to move this Court. In my considered opinion, the controversy having been set at rest by the Apex Court judgment and order, the respondent-University should have duly honoured it by paying the legal dues of the petitioner without creating a situation for him where he was forced to move the Court of law by re-opening the same controversy which was earlier raised by a person namely Ram Krishan Vyas, who was similarly situated. When a legal dispute or controversy is resolved upto the level of the Supreme Court, it is expected of the authorities to honour it in letter and spirit specially by educational institution authorities for whom ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. But merely because the petitioner could not move against the University by virtue of a contempt since the judgment to his benefit was not delivered in his case, cannot leave a latitude or plank for the University to ignore the judgment and direction which was delivered in the case of a similarly situated person. If a particular rule or legal position has been upheld in the case of one employee, it is expected of the authorities to apply it uniformly and not selectively on a mere pretext that the judgment was not delivered in this case and that it applied only in the case of a particular person who had moved earlier. If a particular rule or legal position has been upheld in the case of one employee, it is expected of the authorities to apply it uniformly and not selectively on a mere pretext that the judgment was not delivered in this case and that it applied only in the case of a particular person who had moved earlier. Defeating the enforcement of a judgment in this manner where the legal position is settled down merely gives rise to multiplicity of litigations, for instance in this case if the respondent-University had cared to carefully go through the judgment of the Apex Court, the petitioner perhaps would not have had the occasion to knock the doors of the Court by filing a fresh writ petition. I cannot refrain from recording that situations where several persons one after the other claim one and the same relief or identical relief from the same authority or authorities, they are not expected to take subjective decision forcing similarly situated persons to file independent writ petitions. If a particular view has been taken by a Court of law and that view is not under challenge by way of a further appeal, the same is expected to be uniformly applied without forcing the affected person to approach the Court of law. Unfortunately this is wanting in large number of cases giving rise to spate of litigations raising one and the same issue. 7. From the aforesaid discussions it can be clearly concluded that the petitioner-herein in spite of the settled legal position has been unnecessarily dragged to this Court for if the point was already settled in his favour in the case of Ram Krishan Vyas, there was no reason for the University not to pay him the dues by creating unnecessary hurdles. I, therefore, feel it justified by directing the University to pay the balance amount of gratuity of Rs. 18,683/- along with interest @ 12% interest p.a. to the petitioner from the date of his retirement which is 30.4.1992 till the date of filing this writ petition which is 1.3.2002. It is borne out from the records of the case that the amount towards EPF contribution has been paid to the petitioner which is Rs. 18,683/- along with interest @ 12% interest p.a. to the petitioner from the date of his retirement which is 30.4.1992 till the date of filing this writ petition which is 1.3.2002. It is borne out from the records of the case that the amount towards EPF contribution has been paid to the petitioner which is Rs. 6,780/- but since the same was with-held by the University without any justification, the interest claimed by the petitioner shall also be paid to the petitioner @12% p.a. from the date of retirement till the date of payment. 8. The facts of this case reflect utter defiance of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, by not paying the petitioner his legal dues as also failed to respond to his notice for demand of justice in spite of the fact that the Rajasthan High Court as also the Supreme Court had already held against the University that while paying the amount of gratuity, basic pay, dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance last drawn by the employee have also to be added. This judgment was delivered way back on 4.5.1999 by the Supreme court and yet it was followed only in case of Ram Krishan Vyas and the petitioner was not paid any amount. I, therefore, feel justified in awarding the cost of the litigation also to the petitioner which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. All the payments be made to the petitioner expeditiously but not later than a period of one month from the date of the receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.Writ Petition allowed. *******