JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions have been filed by a number of persons. who are working on the post of Mistry with the Government in its Department of Special Schemes and Integrated Rural Development.In Writ Petition No. 5390/95, all the petitioners were engaged between 1981 to 1984 on the post of Mistry. Petitioners have placed on record copy of the order dated 3.10.1981 showing creation of 41 posts of Mistries in Gobar Gas Plant in the pay scale of Rs. 440-770/-. Subsequently four more posts were created by order dated 16.7.1983. Forty one posts of Mistry were originally created vide order dated 3.10.1981 in the pay scale of Rs. 440-770/-, which according to petitioners was the same scale, which was admissible to Mistry Grade-I working at that time with various other engineering departments of the Government.Subsequently, this pay scale was revised to Rs. 610-1090/-. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that pay scale of Mistry Grade-I working with various departments of the Government was revised to only Rs. 1120-2050/-. But this pay revision was not to the satisfaction of the incumbents working in various departments were not (?) revised under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989. They submitted representation to the Government. Their and similar grievances of so many other cadres were referred to Samta Committee especially constituted by the Government for this purpose. The Samta Committee recommended for enhancing their pay scales,which recommendation was accepted by the Government and in the Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Scale) (Amendment) Rules, 1994, the Government amended various pay scales. Under the existing item at Serial Nos. 5 to 9 and 12 to 18, pay scales of the posts appearing under the heading"Skilled; Technical Posts" were substituted by revised pay scale.At item No. 18, the post of Civil/Mechanic Grade-I was included. Pay scale of which was earlier granted in Rs. 1120-2050 was revised to Rs. 1400-2600/-. Learned counsel submitted that respondent-department abruptly issued an order dated 9.11.1995 changing the designation of petitioners as shown in the various orders from Mistry Grade-Ito Biogas Mistry. This order was issued suddenly with the sanction of Finance Department, which was obtained on 27.10.1995. Subsequently,on the very next date, the respondents issued another order on 10.11.1995 revising the pay scale of petitioners to only Rs. 1200-2050/-and gave this order retrospective effect from 1.9.1988. This order was issued suddenly with the sanction of Finance Department, which was obtained on 27.10.1995. Subsequently,on the very next date, the respondents issued another order on 10.11.1995 revising the pay scale of petitioners to only Rs. 1200-2050/-and gave this order retrospective effect from 1.9.1988. Learned counsel submitted that Government then by order dated 20.11.1995 wrote letters to various Collectors of the State that pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-,which was being paid to Biogas Mistries, has now been reduced to Rs. 1200-2050/- and accordingly necessary action be taken. It is contended that action of respondents is wholly arbitrary inasmuch as discriminatory.Petitioners were being paid the same pay scale which was being paid to Mistry Grade-I working in various departments of the Government in civil and mechanical side. Whenever any revision was made in their pay scale, the petitioners were also granted the same pay scale. Learned counsel submitted that subsequently petitioners were absorbed in different departments of the State and despite being made permanent, were sofar not being granted selection scale in terms of Government circulars dated 25.1.1992 and 17.2.1998. The Respondents have thus without any notice to the petitioner changed not only their designation, but also reduced their pay scale. Once the petitioners were granted the benefit of enhanced pay in terms of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) (First Amendment) Rules, 1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-,that became their vested right, which could not be withdrawn by the respondents retrospectively. In support of their arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Ram Ratan Chouhan & etc. v. State of Rajasthan, 2007(5) SLR 470 and various Supreme Court judgments referred to therein. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petitions and submitted that petitioners were engaged on the post created in a temporary project known as Gobar Gas Plant, which was wholly funded by Government of India. The posts were created for implementation of the scheme. The respondents have acted fairly and justifiably.The pay scale of Rs. 440-770/- was revised to Rs. 610-1090/- w.e.f.1.9.1981, which was further revised to Rs. 1120-2050/- w.e.f. 1.9.1986in the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1989. The said pay scale revised to Rs. 1200-2050/-. Accordingly the said pay scale was paid to the petitioners with the approval of Finance Department. District Rural Development Agencies of certain districts have on their own given to pay scale of Rs. 610-1090/- w.e.f.1.9.1981, which was further revised to Rs. 1120-2050/- w.e.f. 1.9.1986in the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1989. The said pay scale revised to Rs. 1200-2050/-. Accordingly the said pay scale was paid to the petitioners with the approval of Finance Department. District Rural Development Agencies of certain districts have on their own given to pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- to Biogas Mistries. which was absolutely illegal because there was no sanction of the Government for doing so. Learned counsel submitted that it was an erroneous order and mistake was sought to be corrected, therefore, no notice was required to be given to the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners cannot he granted the benefit of selection scale for the period they were working in the Biogas Project because that was a temporary project and that selection scale cannot he granted to temporary employees. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. Although the respondents have averred in their counter affidavit as to when the pay scale of Rs. 1120-2050/- was revised to Rs. 1200-2050/-under Rajasthan Pay Scale Rules, 1989, but they are completely silent about the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) (First Amendment)Rules, 1992 whereby on recommendation of Samta Samiti the Government further revised the pay scale from Rs. 1120-2050/- to Rs. 1400-2600/-in respect of Mistry Grade-I (Civil/Mechanical). Petitioners were all along being granted pay in scale which was paid to Mistry Grade-I working in various engineering departments. The respondents have also not contested this plea of the petitioners. Their contention that some of the District Rural Development Agencies unauthorisedly issued pay fixation order by revising pay scale of Biogas Mistries in pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-, cannot be accepted because pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- was being paid to all the Miseries Grade-I. Respondents much after the enforcement of Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1989 w.e.f.1.9.1988 and even three years after the notification of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) (First Amendment) Rules, 1992,have changed the designation of petitioners from Mistry/Mistry Grade-Ito Biogas Mistry. This was obviously done to facilitate reduction in their pay scale, which they did on the following date by passing another order dated 10.11.1995 and then consequential instructions were issued to various Collectors by order dated 20.11.1995. This was obviously done to facilitate reduction in their pay scale, which they did on the following date by passing another order dated 10.11.1995 and then consequential instructions were issued to various Collectors by order dated 20.11.1995. This Court in Ram Ratan Chouhan (supra) following various Supreme Court judgments held that right to receive salary or emoluments in a particular pay scale is one of the conditions of the service. Such right may flow from the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and even from executive instructions in a given case. When a particular Government servant has been allowed to drawh is salary in a particular scale of pay on the basis of his rights flowing from relevant rules, such a role cannot be allowed to be amended with effect from an anterior date thereby withdrawing the benefits available to the Government servant. It is trite proposition that vested rights and accrued rights cannot be withdrawn by amending the rules retrospectively or by enforcing the newly framed rules retrospectively.It was held that even though the Governor in exercise of his power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution can make rules which may have prospective or retrospective operation, such rules are always open to challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights contained in part III of the Constitution of India, especially Articles 14 & 16 thereof. Rule which operates in future so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. But when a rule seeks to reverse already granted, drawn or availed benefit from an earlier date, it would be open to challenge as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, in that case, petitioners were working on the post of Vice Principal and they were receiving the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, the pay scale was revised by Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998 to the scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- accordingly they were receiving salary in such revised pay scale. The Government thereafter subsequently by notification dated 7.8.1998 amended the above referred to revised pay scale rules retrospectively and thereby reduced the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- of the Vice Principal of Education Department to the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.7.1998. 8000-13500/- accordingly they were receiving salary in such revised pay scale. The Government thereafter subsequently by notification dated 7.8.1998 amended the above referred to revised pay scale rules retrospectively and thereby reduced the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- of the Vice Principal of Education Department to the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.7.1998. It was in this context that the Government notification retrospectively reducing the pay scale of petitioners was quashed and set aside on the analogy that petitioners have acquired the vested right to receive their salary in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 w.e.f. 1.7.1998 and thereafter,it could not be unilaterally withdrawn by the Government. The same analogy would apply to the facts of the present case. 6. Coming now to the question of grant of selection scale, learned counsel for the respondents is justified in contending that petitioners are entitled to receive selection scale only from the date on which they were regularised in service. This controversy has been set at rest by recent judgment of Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan &Ors. v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi : Civil Appeal No. 3620/09 (arisingout of SLP (C) No. 2848 of 2006) decided on 8.5.2009 . 7. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 9.11.1995, 10.11.1995, 20.11.1995 and 22.11.1995 are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to receive salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- w.e.f. 1.9.1988 and they are further held entitled to such salary in that pay scale throughout or in the corresponding pay scale in the subsequent Revised Pay Scale Rules.Since the recovery orders have in these cases remain stayed pursuant to stay order passed by this Court, such recovery order would stand quashed. Petitioners are also entitled to receive selection scale from the date of their absorption/ substantive appointment in the absorbing department in terms of Government circular dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998.In case, any arrear is found payable to them, the same would be paid to the petitioners with interest @ 6% per annum. 8. Compliance of this judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. *******