JUDGMENT 1. 1. As per office-note, this appeal was barred by 5 days. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the delay has been explained properly. The application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal stands condoned.With consent, arguments heard. 2. Appellant appears to be aggrieved by an order dated 10.07.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in his Writ Petition No. 2357/2004. The prayer made before the learned Single Judge, by the appellant, by the filing Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution, was for grant of benefit of the services rendered by him in the Family Planning Department, from his initial appointment on 18.11.1968 for the purpose of granting selection scale with all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge, while referring to proviso III to Item-3 of the Circular dated 17.02.1998 issued by the Finance Department (Rules Division) of the State of Rajasthan, came to the conclusion that in two Departments the appellant was not holding the same post. The term 'same post' means carrying same designation and pay scale. 3. After having initially served in the Department of Family Planning, he was transferred to Social Welfare Department vide order dated 15.09.1972. His earlier pay scale at the time of his transfer was 180-425 on the post of Urban Family Planning Extension Educator in the Family Planing Department. On transfer to the Social Welfare Department, his post was designated as Regional Social Worker in the pay scale 180-425. 4. In the light of the aforesaid two orders (Annexures 6 and 9, annexed with the writ petition), it has been contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the services of the petitioner rendered in earlier Department i.e. Family Planing Department, should have been computed for grant of benefit to him as he was holding the same post with the same pay scale. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent was not able to point out any contrary circular than what has been relied upon by the appellant. The orders issued in favour of the appellant are also indicative of the fact that he-was enjoying the same pay scale in both the Departments even after transfer. In any case, the designation cannot be the same in two different Departments. The orders issued in favour of the appellant are also indicative of the fact that he-was enjoying the same pay scale in both the Departments even after transfer. In any case, the designation cannot be the same in two different Departments. What is required to be seen is whether he was discharging the similar functions and duties in both the Departments, or not. Prima-facie, it appears that he was discharging similar type of duties and functions in both the Departments, therefore, his case ought to have been considered by the respondents in accordance with law. 6. In the light of foregoing discussion, we set-aside and quash the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and instead direct the respondent State to consider the appellant's case for grant of relief, as has been claimed by him in the writ petition; if he is able to fulfil the requirement as contemplated under this Circular then necessary relief, under intimation to him, be granted within a period of three months. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands finally disposed of. *******