Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Daulat Chand Jain, a Senior Personal Assistant in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer came to be appointed in M.D.S. University, Ajmer on 13.1988 as Section Officer. Before joining his new assignment in the University, he submitted a representation vide which he enquired as to whether his pay that he was drawing as Senior Personal Assistant would be protected. The University replied vide letter dated 28.4.1988 assuring him protection of his pay in accordance with Rule 6(1) of the Rules for fixation of pay of University Employees, 1985 (in short the Rules of 1985). It was after receipt of the reply aforesaid that he joined on the post of Section Officer in the University on 5.1988. After serving for eleven years, he superannuated and when he was denied retiral dues, based upon the pay that he was drawing and which, as mentioned above, had been protected, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6862/1999 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 110.2000. 2. The learned Single Judge, after holding that Daulat Chand Jain was employed earlier in the State Government and the basic pay drawn by him with the previous employer was protected under Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1985 directed that Daulat Chand Jain be given retiral benefits viz; provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment, if it be due, within three months from the date of Judgment . 3. The appellant herein filed an application seeking review of the order dated 110.2004 which was dismissed being barred by 1206 days. Learned Single Judge found no sufficient reason for condoning the massive delay of 1206 days. 4. The appellant University in the present appeal filed by it has challenged the two orders referred to above. 5. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. No argument with regard to applicability of Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1985 has been raised. Rule 6(1) which has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 110.2004 clearly envisages protection of pay drawn by an employee with the previous employer. In the present case, the appellant University had accepted applicability of Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1985 even prior to joining of Daulat Chand Jain as Section Officer and his pay was accordingly fixed. In the present case, the appellant University had accepted applicability of Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1985 even prior to joining of Daulat Chand Jain as Section Officer and his pay was accordingly fixed. For long eleven years, no objection with regard to the pay protection of the respondent was ever raised and it is only on superannuation of the respondent that audit objections that the respondent cannot be released retiral benefits in accordance with the last pay drawn by him, were raised and that too, without giving any cogent reasons. 6. In the facts as detailed hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge rightly granted the required relief to the respondent. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in this appeal and hence, it is dismissed.