JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2006 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3623/2006 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein and the appellants were directed to fix the respondent's pay at the basic of Rs. 840/- in the pay scale of Rs. 740-1420 with effect from the date the Rules of 1983 came into force. 2. The respondent herein filed the said writ petition as his pay was not properly fixed by the Department. The case of the respondent-original writ petitioner is that he entered in the services of appellants by joining the duties as Technical Assistant (Hydrologist) by order dated 30.1.1982. At the time of his appointment, his pay was fixed at Rs. 630/- in the pay scale of Rs. 550-1010. The aforesaid pay scale was revised to Rs. 740-1420 under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1983. At the relevant time, i.e. at the time when the said Rules came into force, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 630/- and as per table No. 16 at item No. 5, the existing pay of Rs. 630 was revised to Rs. 840/-. The case of the respondent is that at the relevant time, when his pay was fixed at Rs. 630/-, corresponding scale of Rs. 840/- was required to be given and his pay was required to be fixed at Rs. 840/-, instead his pay was fixed at Rs. 740/- which is the minimum pay in the scale of Rs. 740-1420. The respondent, therefore, challenged the said action by filing the aforesaid writ petition. The petition was opposed by the present appellants by taking the plea that the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 740/- long back in the year 1983 and, therefore, the petition suffers from delay and laches. A stand was also taken before the learned Single Judge that even though it is true that at the relevant time, the respondent's pay was fixed at Rs. 630/-, but his pay was rightly fixed at Rs. 740/- as the respondent was granted four advance increments at the relevant time and now under the New Rules regarding revising the pay scale, there is no provision for advance increment and, therefore, his pay was rightly fixed at Rs. 630/-, but his pay was rightly fixed at Rs. 740/- as the respondent was granted four advance increments at the relevant time and now under the New Rules regarding revising the pay scale, there is no provision for advance increment and, therefore, his pay was rightly fixed at Rs. 740/- in the pay scale of Rs. 740-1420. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the stand taken by the present appellants is not at all sustainable. It is not in dispute that at the time when the Rules of 1983 came into force, the pay of the petitioner was admittedly fixed at Rs. 630/- which also included advance increments given to the respondent. As per Table No. 16 Item No. 5, existing pay of Rs. 630/- was revised to Rs. 840/-. Therefore, there was no reason to fix the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 740/- which is minimum of pay scale of Rs. 740-1420. It is not in dispute that at the time when the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs. 630/-, the same was in the scale of Rs. 550-1010, which scale was revised to Rs. 740-1420. The Table No. 16 under the Rules of 1983 prescribes various steps at which fixation is required to be made. As per table No. 16 at item No. 5, the existing pay of Rs. 630 was revised to Rs. 840/-. Since at the relevant time, the respondent was getting the basic pay of Rs. 630, his fixation was required to be made at Rs. 840 in view of table No. 16 item No. 5. 4. Mr. Bharti however submitted that the respondent should have immediately come to the Court in the year 1983 when his pay was wrongly fixed. However, it is not in dispute that the representation filed by the petitioner was pending and in fact, the petitioner has also earlier approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 296/1998 and the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 22.7.2005 directing the Department to decide the representation pending before it. In compliance of order of this Court, the representation of the petitioner was decided and ultimately, the same was rejected by the order which was impugned in the writ petition. In compliance of order of this Court, the representation of the petitioner was decided and ultimately, the same was rejected by the order which was impugned in the writ petition. In fact, the appellants were duty bound to fix the appropriate pay of the respondent and when the appellants had failed to do the same, the respondent cannot be blamed for approaching the Court at later stage as it was the duty of the appellants to fix the pay of the respondent at appropriate stage. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that he had approached the Court at late stage. 5. Considering the said aspect of the matter, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******