JUDGMENT 1. These 15 intra-court appeals involving an identical issue have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2. The issue involved herein relates to the grant of selection grade to the writ-petitioners who had been working on the post of Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary Gram Panchayat. The Government issued the circular dated 25.01.1992 providing benefit of selection grades upon completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in relation to the employees who had not been given the benefit of first, second and third promotion respectively. In the earlier round of litigation concerning the present matters some of the writ-petitioners approached this Court by way of separate writ petitions with the submissions that by the order dated 22.09.2006, they were granted the benefit of selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 but were denied the pay scale of the promotional post, which, according to them, was that of Instructor/Panchayat Extension Officer having the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. The petitioners, thus, contended that they should be given the benefit of the pay scale of the said promotional post. It appears that the fact of promotional post for the Village Level Worker to be that of the Instructor/Panchayat Extension Officer was a fact candidly admitted by the respondents before this Court but then reliance was placed on the Government Circular dated 30.10.1994 stating that the post of Village Level Worker was having no avenue of promotion. 3. The learned Single Judge of this Court considered and disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions together by the order dated 25.02.2008 while observing and directing as under- "In view of the above factual position the first issue remains for consideration is as to whether the promotion on the post of Instructor/Panchayat Extension Officer from the post of village level worker exist within the same service/cadre or not. Perusal of the rules as enclosed alongwith the writ petition as annexure/4 shows promotional avenues provided within the same service and cadre as avenue of promotion in schedule II pertains to subordinate service. Therefore, it prima facie seems that without taking note of the rules, the circular dated 3.10.1994 is being issued and it is precisely for that reason that the petitioners and all other similarly situated employees have not been extended the benefit of the pay scale of the promotional post. Therefore, it prima facie seems that without taking note of the rules, the circular dated 3.10.1994 is being issued and it is precisely for that reason that the petitioners and all other similarly situated employees have not been extended the benefit of the pay scale of the promotional post. Despite of the fact that as per circular dated 25.1.1992, if avenue of promotion exist in the same service/cadre then on completion of required length of service for grant of first, second and third selection scale, the pay scale of the promotional post is required to be given. In view of the position stated above, the action of the respondents in denying pay scale of the promotional post to the petitioner on completion of 9 years of service prima facie cannot be held to be valid and accordingly, the grant of pay scale pursuant to the circular dated 3.10.1994 cannot be said to be proper. Yet it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to consider this aspect as has been dealt with in this judgment and if the promotion exist in the same service/cadre then either correcting the circular dated 3.10.1994 or by withdrawing the same, the petitioner and similarly situated candidates should be extended benefit of pay scale as otherwise admissible at par with promotional post." 4. It appears that after the aforesaid order as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the State Government considered the matter and realised the anomalous position if the Village Level Worker cum Secretary would be denied the I. iy scale for the purpose of first selection grade equivalent to that of the promotional post of Panchayat Extension Officer particularly when the post of Panchayat Extension Officer is to be filled in 100% by promotion from the Village Level Worker cum Secretary. The State Government, accordingly, ordered that as an exception, on completion of 9 years of regular service by a Village Level Worker cum Secretary, he would be allowed first selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 of the promotion post of Panchayat Extension Officer. The State Government, accordingly, ordered that as an exception, on completion of 9 years of regular service by a Village Level Worker cum Secretary, he would be allowed first selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 of the promotion post of Panchayat Extension Officer. This decision was issued in the form of the order dated 12.06.2008 while stating- "Accordingly, the matter has been considered and keeping in view the fact that the post of Panchayat Extension Officer is filled in 100% by promotion from Village Level Worker cum Secretary, the Governor is pleased to order that as an exception on completion of 9 years of regular service by a Village Level Worker cum Secretary, in pay. scale of Rs. 3200-85-4900, he may be allowed First Selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 of the promotion post of Panchayat Extension Officer. These orders shall come into force with immediate effect." 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 12.06.2008, some of the concerning Panchayati Raj Institutions proceeded to allow first selection grade in the said pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 upon completion of 9 years of service of the concerning incumbent as Village Level Worker cum Secretary from the date of first appointment; and issued necessary orders in that regard. However, the Government in its Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department took exception against granting of such pay scale pursuant to the said order dated 12.06.2008 with retrospective effect and issued the order dated 11.11.2008 that the said office order dated 12.06.2008 was specifically made operative "from immediate effect" and any benefit accorded for the period before the said date i.e., 12.06.2008 was entirely illegal; and such a benefit was required to be withdrawn and necessary recovery was required to be made. The concerning Panchayat Samities accordingly, proceeded to issue the orders proposing to recover the amount paid to the incumbents pursuant to the earlier orders. In some other cases, of course, the concerning Panchayat Samities issued the orders allowing the revised pay scale to the incumbent only with effect from 12.06.2008. 6. The employees again approached this Court by way of writ petitions contending against denial of proper pay scale after completion of 9 years of service and granting the same only from 12.06.2008. In some other cases, of course, the concerning Panchayat Samities issued the orders allowing the revised pay scale to the incumbent only with effect from 12.06.2008. 6. The employees again approached this Court by way of writ petitions contending against denial of proper pay scale after completion of 9 years of service and granting the same only from 12.06.2008. The learned Single Judge accepted the submissions of the petitioners while observing that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had already held the petitioners and like persons entitled to the selection grade upon completion of 9 years of service and such a benefit was not dependent on the date of passing of the subsequent order by the State Government. The learned Single Judge observed that by the order dated 12.06.2008, the State Government did only what it should have been done earlier; and merely because the Government proceeded to take the decision on 12.06.2008, the benefit of selection grade could not be denied upon completion of 9 years of service. In the cases where the requisite pay scale was ordered to be granted only with effect from" 12.06.2008, the learned Single Judge directed that fresh orders be issued qua the petitioners; and in other cases where such pay scale had indeed been granted from the date of completion of 9 years of service and recovery was proposed to be made, the learned Single Judge proceeded to quash the mpugned order dated 11.11.2008 as issued by the Government for effecting Recovery. 7. Seeking to challenge the orders so passed by the learned Single Judge, it is contended on behalf of the appellant-State that upon completion of 9 years of service the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 was available under the Rules and hence, the same was allowed to the writ-petitioners but the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000 was to be admissible only from 12.06.2008 as the Government directed to grant such scale to the Village Level Workers upon completion of 9 years of service from immediate effect i.e., prospectively and not retrospectively. It is also sought to be suggested that the posts of Village Level Worker and Panchayat Extension Officer are not in the same cadre and, rather the post of Village Level Worker is governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. It is also sought to be suggested that the posts of Village Level Worker and Panchayat Extension Officer are not in the same cadre and, rather the post of Village Level Worker is governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. Rules, 1996 whereas the post of Panchayat Extension Officer is governed by the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998. It is submitted that the two posts being not in the same cadre, the writ petitioners were accorded benefit of the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as per the circular dated 25.01.1992 but when the benefit of the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 was decided to be given as exceptional case by the order dated 12.06.2008, the same could not have been given retrospectively. 8. It may be pointed out that in this batch of matters, the petitions involving the same issue have essentially been decided following the decision in CWP No. 733/2009 : Jagdish Bhanoda v. State of Rajasthan and Others, decided on 29.07.2009 . The appeal against the lead decision in CWP No. 733/2009 (being SAW No. 07859/2009) is reported to be barred by limitation by 30 days. However, the other appeals have been filed within time. In this position, we have considered it appropriate to ignore the delay in filing the appeal in the main case i.e. CWP No. 773/2008 and have considered all the appeals on merits. 9. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter we find the suggestions as made on behalf of the appellant wholly baseless and untenable. 10. The suggestion about two posts of Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary and Panchayat Extension Officer being governed by different set of Rules is hardly of any relevance once the fact is admitted that the post of Panchayat- Extension Officer is filled in only by way of promotion from Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary; and once it has been decided by the Government itself that the Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary Is to be allowed first selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000, referable to the promotion post of Panchayat Extension Officer. 5000-150-8000, referable to the promotion post of Panchayat Extension Officer. Even if in the technical terms, the post of Village Level Worker is said to be not belonging to the same service/cadre as that of the post of Panchayat Extension Officer, the peculiar aspect of the relevant Rules remains that the post of Panchayat Extension Officer is to be filled in only by way of promotion from the Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary. The Government having realised this position, rightly passed the order dated 12.06.2008 allowing first selection grade to the Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary in the pay scale of the promotional post of Panchayat Extension Officer i.e., Rs. 5000-150-8000. It was only a matter of chance that such a decision was taken by the Government only on 12.06.2008. In fact, such a decision was taken only after this Court in the earlier round of litigation indicated the anomalous position. Be that as it may, the date of taking such decision and date of issuing consequential order have got hardly any bearing or relevance so far the entitlement of the writ-petitioners to the appropriate pay scale under the order dated 25.01.1992 is concerned. The said set of Rules of 1996 and 1998 were in existence even at the time of issuance of earlier order by the State Government wherein the writ-petitioners were sought to to be allowed the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 on the ground that there was no promotional avenue available in the service for the Village Level Worker. The Government rightly re-considered the matter pursuant to the observations made by this Court and rightly took note of the peculiar position of the operation of the Rules where Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary is difficult to be considered detached from Panchayati Raj Services and Subordinate Services for the purpose of grant of selection grade particularly when the specific promotional avenue of Panchayat Extension Officer is available; and more particularly for the reason that the post of Panchayat Extension Officer is to be filled in only by way of promotion from Village Level Worker. 11. 11. Once the State Government took a rightful and rather appropriate decision to grant pay scale of the promotional post of Panchayat Extension Officer as first selection grade to the incumbents like the writ-petitioners upon completion of 9 years of regular service as Village Level Worker-cum-Secretary this Court is unable to find any logic, rationale or justification that such benefit would be allowed only from the date of issuance of the order by the State Government. 12. We are unable to countenance the suggestions as made on behalf of the appellants that the benefit flowing from the order dated 12.06.2008 would also be prospective in nature to the extent that the persons like the petitioners would not be granted,the benefit of selection grade in the requisite pay scale upon completion of 9 years of service but only from 12.06.2008. The stand of the appellant-State, in our view, appears to be entirely unjustified and untenable. The order dated 12.06.2008 could only be read as clarificatory in nature and rather of correction by the State Government of its earlier mistake. 13. In .our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error or illegality in allowing the writ petitions and in directing correction of errors where the benefit was allowed only from 12.06.2008 and in quashing the orders for recovery in relation to the cases where the benefit had already been granted upon completion of 9 years of service. The impugned orders do not call for any interference in these appeals. 14. Accordingly, these appeals fall and are dismissed summarily.Appeals Dismissed. *******