JUDGMENT The controversy involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same and the challenge is raised on the same set of facts and only one counter affidavit and reply thereof has been filed in all these petitions, hence they all are being disposed of by this common order. In Writ Petition No. 145 of 2004, the date chart of date of appointment and serial number and date of regularization and the serial number in respect of the petitioners is as under: I Sl. Name Date/Year of ad-hoc Date of Regularization No. appointment Date Sl.No. Date Sl. No. 1. Girish Chandra 11.04.1997 70 03.07.2003 42 Pant 2. Dr. Harsh Vardhan 11.04.1997 77 03.07.2003 12 Mishra 3. Santosh Kumar 11.04.1997 59 03.07.2003 11 4. Dr. Mahendra 06.04.1998 34 03.01.2003 51 Pratap Singh In Writ Petition No. 214'of 2004, the date chart of date of appointment and serial number and date of regularization and the serial number in respect of the petitioners is as under: Sl. Name Date/Year of ad-hoc Date of Regularization No. appointment Date Sl.No. Date Sl. No. 1. Dr. M.S. Chauhan 11.04.1997 45 03.07.2003 18 2. Ajay Kumar Paliwal 11.04.1997 120 03.07.2003 37 3. Dr. Puneeta Kushwaha 11.04.1997 58 03.07.2003 10 4. Smt. Sadhana Pant 11.04.1997 38 03.07.2003 40 5. Dr. Mukesh Joshi 11.04.1997 90 03.07.2003 29 6. Dr. Neeru Gupta 06.04.1998 67 03.07.2003 63 7. Dr. Bharat lee 06.04.1998 33 03.07.2003 44 Uoadhvav . 8. Dr. Anil Kumar 06.04.1998 36 03.07.2003 60 Srivastava 9. Dr. Rakesh Bisht 06.04.1998 41 03.07.2003 46 In Writ Petition No. 216 of 2004, the date chart of date of appointment and serial number and date of regularization and the serial number in respect of the petitioners is as under: Sl. Name Date/Year of ad-hoc Date of Regularization No. appointment Date Sl.No. Date Sl. No. 1. Dr. Dhiv Dutt Tewari 11.04.1997 119 03.07.2003 33 2. Dr. Puran Chandra 11.04.1997 86 03.07.2003 13 Suval 3. Dr. Chandra Shekhar 11.04.1997 88 03.07.2003 22 4. Dr. Kum Kum Shah 11.04.1997 100 03,91.2003 14 5. Dr. Prabha Pant U.04.1997 61 03.07.2003 21 6. Dr. Meena Sharma 11.04.1997 52 03.07.2003 19 7. Dr. Chandra Singh Negi 11.04.1997 106 03.07.2003 36 8. Dr. Dhiv Dutt Tewari 11.04.1997 119 03.07.2003 33 2. Dr. Puran Chandra 11.04.1997 86 03.07.2003 13 Suval 3. Dr. Chandra Shekhar 11.04.1997 88 03.07.2003 22 4. Dr. Kum Kum Shah 11.04.1997 100 03,91.2003 14 5. Dr. Prabha Pant U.04.1997 61 03.07.2003 21 6. Dr. Meena Sharma 11.04.1997 52 03.07.2003 19 7. Dr. Chandra Singh Negi 11.04.1997 106 03.07.2003 36 8. Dr. Asha Rana 11.04.1997 28 03.07.2003 02 In Writ Petition No. 271 of 2004, the date chart of date of appointment and serial number and date of regularization and the serial number in respect of the petitioners is as under : 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not being paid the salary on the revised pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention on the order dated 18.04.2000 issued by the Director of Higher Education, erstwhile State of U.P. addressed to all the Principals of Degree Colleges whereby it was directed that part-time lecturers shall be entitled for payment on the enhanced revised pay scale i.e. Rs. 8000-275-13500, (which is contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition). Ld. counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the revised pay scale was being paid to the part-time lecturers, and the petitioners being full time lecturers, were also entitled for payment of revised pay scale even on their ad-hoc appointments. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that in view of the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 13911 of 1999 vide order dated 05.04.1999, the petitioners are pot entitled to the payment of salary on the revised pay scale as in view of the aforesaid judgment, they were not entitled for any continuity and regularization. 5. This judgment relates to the writ petition filed by the adhoc appointees of the year 1998 who, had filed the writ petition for their regularization and had sought a direction against the State Government to regularize them and in that case the High Court passed the "order quoted in the counter affidavit. That order was not relating to the payment of revised pay scale to the ad-hoc appointees who were already working there. 6. The second objection raised in the counter affidavit is• that petitioners were not selected in accordance with the Rules, therefore, they are not entitled for the revised pay scale. That order was not relating to the payment of revised pay scale to the ad-hoc appointees who were already working there. 6. The second objection raised in the counter affidavit is• that petitioners were not selected in accordance with the Rules, therefore, they are not entitled for the revised pay scale. It is noticed that the posts of the Lecturers were advertised and petitioners were selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee and then the petitioners were ,given ad-hoc appointments who have now been regularized under the Uttaranchal Regularization Rules known as Uttaranchal Regularization of Adhoc Appointments (on the posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002. 7. Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioners are entitled for payment of difference of arrears of salary on the basis of Government Order dated 16.02.1999 revising the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as they were in service at the time of issuance of the Government Order and they were appointed after the cut off date given in the said government order and their services have already been regularized. . 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions arc allowed: The-respondents are directed to pay the difference of arrears of salary to all the petitioners in these writ petitions within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.