JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner in the year 1997 with prayer that respondents may be directed to re-fix his pay with effect from 07.07.1984. 2. Dr. Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, has submitted that petitioner was initially appointed with respondent Board as Helper Gr.II with effect from 01.01.1974, whereas Sarva Shri Manda Lal Rohilla was appointed in February, 1979, Mohan Lal Khyaliya was appointed in February, 1978 and Ram Karan Jat was appointed in March, 1973 with the respondent Board against the post of Helper Gr.II. 3. Petitioner appeared in Departmental Competitive Examination for the purpose of his selection against the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and after being declared successful he was appointed against the post of LDC with effect from 07.07.1984, whereas the above named three persons, namely Mohan Lal, Madan Lal and Ram Karan Jat were appointed against the post of LDC with effect from 06.07.1984, 15.11.1984 and 17.04.1985, respectively, but, at the time of pay fixation, petitioner's pay was fixed in the pay scale of 530-950 at initial basic pay of Rs. 530/-, whereas above referred three persons were fixed in that pay scale initially at Rs. 580/- while giving them benefit of pay fixation. The petitioner had applied for the post of LDC in the competitive examination conducted by the respondent Board and, on being declared successful, he was appointed on that post on 07.07.1984. Despite being senior, petitioner is being deprived of higher pay which is being allowed to his juniors named above and it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as also in violation of Circular dated 20.06.1974, which was issued in terms of Rule 26-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules and Regulation 27 of the RSEB Employees Service Regulation, 1964. Pay of the petitioner is therefore liable to be stepped up at par with his juniors, named above. 4. Respondents, in reply to writ petition, have contested the claim of petitioner by asserting that petitioner at the time of his appointment as LDC on 07.07.1984 was fixed in pay scale of 370-570, which was later on revised to 530-740. He, being a fresh appointee, cannot claim his case to be that of promotion. 4. Respondents, in reply to writ petition, have contested the claim of petitioner by asserting that petitioner at the time of his appointment as LDC on 07.07.1984 was fixed in pay scale of 370-570, which was later on revised to 530-740. He, being a fresh appointee, cannot claim his case to be that of promotion. So far as promotion from the post of Helper Gr.II is concerned, next promotion provided for that is to the post of Helper Gr.I, which is a separate wing i.e. on technical side. Post of LDC falls in ministerial cadre and mode of recruitment therefor is 85% by direct recruitment and 15% by promotion from Class IV employees working with respondent Board. 5. In these circumstances, Shri Sandeep Taneja, holding brief of Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for respondents, submitted that petitioner cannot claim his case to be that of promotion as he was not promoted on the post of LDC, whereas he is direct recruit to the post of LDC. In other words he cannot be extended the benefit which arises out of promotion to that post of LDC. He is to be treated as fresh recruit. 6. It is submitted that persons whose reference has been made by petitioner in writ petition, were although junior to him, but in their case a writ petition No.3903/1988 was allowed by this Court and Mohan Lal was held entitled for fixation of his salary at Rs. 580/-, on the basis of judgment passed in Writ Petition No.4019/1988 decided on 31.10.1990. Subsequently in identical cases, another Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6916/1992 with 34 other writ petitions, referred the matter for disposal by Division Bench as two contradictory judgments were there on similar issue. The Division Bench decided as many as 35 writ petitions vide order dated 03.06.1994 holding that persons who undertook direct recruitment examination, 1984, are fresh appointee against 85% quota of direct recruitment. The DB also took note of judgment passed in writ petitions preferred by those persons referred by petitioner in this writ petitions. The DB also noticed that the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench was not brought to the notice of the Court when aforesaid Writ Petitions were decided and took cognizance of fact and circumstances on the basis of which the Single Judge made a reference. The DB also noticed that the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench was not brought to the notice of the Court when aforesaid Writ Petitions were decided and took cognizance of fact and circumstances on the basis of which the Single Judge made a reference. The DB held that all those persons who are appointed directly as LDC on the basis of competitive examination are not entitled to any benefit of past service as they relinquished their right while seeking fresh appointment. The review petition No.3002/1994 filed for review of that DB judgment was also rejected on 26.09.1994. 7. In any case, learned counsel for respondents contended that present writ petition with regard to alleged pay fixation made way back in the year 1985 has been filed in the year 1997 i.e. with a delay of 12 years. The pay fixation was made as per the provisions of Mohan Mukherjee's Award. 8. In view of detailed clarification made by respondents, especially in view of DB judgment, reference whereof has been made by respondents, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed because as many as 35 writ petitions, vide judgment of this Court rendered in the cases, were also dismissed. 9. The present writ petition is therefore dismissed. 10. A copy of this judgment be endorsed to petitioner for information.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******