Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8358/2009, filed by the petitioner, it is specifically prayed that the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his joining and, further, prayed is made that his salary may be fixed in accordance with the RCS (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 and onwards and respondents may further be directed to allow the benefits of notification dated 25.1.1992 along with all consequential benefits with interest at the rate of 18%. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer at Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur on 6/8.3.1978. The services of the petitioner were utilized by the respondent University in various sections of the Department. The petitioner was allowed periodical increments, so also, he was granted benefit of revised pay-scales in accordance with Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987. The University granted benefit of selection grade as per State Government notification dated 25.1.1992 for removing the financial stagnation and, in pursuance of that, all the employees of the University were granted benefit of fixation as well as selection grade. 3. After bifurcation of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Udaipur, the petitioner remained employee of the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur. 4. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1978 and, till filing of the writ petition, although the petitioner worked for more than 30 years the respondents did not regularise the services of the petitioner despite the fact that the Board of Management took decision vide resolution No.AU/BOM/39/98-693 dated 22.1.1998, whereby, it was resolved that the case of all employees will be regularized after passing the job test/interview, if they are found qualified for the post and have been given appointment on ad hoc basis. Although the above decision was taken by the Board of Management, the services of the petitioner were not regularized. 5. In this writ petition, after issuing notice when reply was filed, then, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed following order on 22.3.2011 : "Appointment was given to the petitioner as Assistant Agriculture Officer at Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur in the pay-scale of R. 500-1010. The appointment so made was purely on ad-hoc basis for a period not exceeding six months from the date of joining. The appointment so made was purely on ad-hoc basis for a period not exceeding six months from the date of joining. By several orders the term of appointment of petitioner was extended by the respondents and, as such, is still continuing with the respondents. The Board of Management of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner in employment of whom the petitioner was earlier working resolved to regularize the services of all ad-hoc appointees from the date of their joining on qualifying prescribed job-test/interview. The grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to him to qualify the job-test/interview and, therefore, his service has yet not been regularized. Shri G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Yashpal Khileree, Dy. Government Counsel representing the respondent-University submits that necessary steps shall be taken expeditiously to regularize the service of the petitioner and alike persons. Be that as it may, looking to all the facts and circumstances of cases, I deem it appropriate to direct he respondent-University as an interim measure to complete the process of regularisation by holding job-test/interview on or before 22.4.2011. The necessary order with regard to regularisation of petitioner's service shall also be passed on or before the date aforesaid. Let this writ petition be listed for admission on 25.4.2011." 6. Upon perusal of the above order, it is abundantly clear that a direction was given by this Court during the pendency of the writ petition to the respondent University to complete the process of regularisation by holding job/test-interview on or before 22.4.2011 as an interim measure and order with regard to regularisation of petitioner's service shall also be passed on or before the said date. 7. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention towards order dated 20.4.2011 submits that in pursuance of the above order the petitioner appeared in the job-test and he was declared successful but, unfortunately, after 32 years of service having been rendered by the petitioner the respondents have issued order for fresh appointment in the pay Band Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 3600 plus admissible allowances inspite of the fact that petitioner's suitability was adjudged and petitioner was found to be suitable for regularisation of his services. The following order was passed by the respondent University : "Pursuant to the order dated 22.3.2011, passed by Hon'ble High Court, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8358/2009 - Sh. 3600 plus admissible allowances inspite of the fact that petitioner's suitability was adjudged and petitioner was found to be suitable for regularisation of his services. The following order was passed by the respondent University : "Pursuant to the order dated 22.3.2011, passed by Hon'ble High Court, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8358/2009 - Sh. Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt vs. MPUAT & Ors. and consequent to the recommendations of the Screening Committee (meeting held on 19th April, 2011) and subsequent approval of Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor is pleased to regularize the services of Sh. Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, with immediate effect and post him at Directorate of Extension Education, Udaipur, on a starting pay in the pay-band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 3600 plus admissible allowances thereon, on Terms and Conditions : 1. "New Contributory Pension Scheme" shall be admissible to him, which is applicable to Government employees appointed on or after 1.1.2004. 2. He shall not be allowed the benefit of Selection Grade, as per the provisions of Finance Department Order No. F.16(2)FD/Rules/ 98 dated 17.2.1998, as amended from time to time. 3. He will be governed by the medi-claim coverage, which is applicable to Government employees appointed on or after 1.1.2004." 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the aforesaid fact of providing fresh appointment clearly reveals that the respondents are not only flouting their own order of regularization of services of the petitioner but have also passed order for fresh appointment of the petitioner while observing the term "with immediate effect" in the order dated 20.4.2011 which is contrary to their own resolution dated 22.1.1998 although the aforesaid resolution was passed by the then University but notification dated 4/6.1.2000 was later on issued by the present University, in which, it was decided to follow all the decisions taken by the Board of Management Academic Council and other committees of the Rajasthan Agriculture University since 1987 by the present University. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the suitability of the petitioner has been adjudged by way of taking job-test/interview as per the decision and also order passed by this Court on 22.3.2011, then, obviously the petitioner was to be given benefit with effect from the date of his initial appointment because he has been found suitable in the job-test/interview taken by the respondents for the purpose of regularization of service and not for fresh appointment. Therefore, it is prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that although order dated 20.4.2011 for regularization of the services of the petitioner has been passed but the respondents are required to be directed to grant all service benefits to the petitioner from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer in view of the fact that petitioner is rendering service with due satisfaction of the University. 10. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that separate writ petition has also been filed to challenge subsequent order dated 20.4.2011, in which, it is prayed that respondents may be directed to grant all benefits from the date of initial appointment as per resolution of the University, therefore, both the writ petitions may be decided together and respondents may be directed to grant all benefits including financial benefit to the petitioner with effect from the date of initial appointment in service. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently contended that the services of the petitioner have been regularized after taking job-test/interview but the petitioner is not entitled to all the benefits of service with effect from the date of his initial appointment because his suitability has been adjudged at present, therefore, order dated 20.4.2011 by which services of the petitioner have been regularized with immediate effect, does not require any interference. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused entire pleadings of the case. 13. In this matter, the respondents are not disputing the date of appointment of the petitioner which is 6/8.3.1978 on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer. Even the respondents are not disputing the fact hat resolution was passed by the Board of Management of the then University in which the petitioner was appointed which is Annex.15 which runs as follows : "1. Even the respondents are not disputing the fact hat resolution was passed by the Board of Management of the then University in which the petitioner was appointed which is Annex.15 which runs as follows : "1. Such persons who have passed the prescribed job-test/interview and are found qualified for the post and has been given appointment on ad hoc basis, their services be regularized from the date of Joining the post through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. 2. Such persons although, fulfill the prescribed qualifications but have been given appointment on ad hoc/casual/fixed basis without job/test/ interview their services be regularised after taking the prescribed job- test/interview as per rules through a Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. 3. Consideration of regularization of services of such persons who were appointed on ad hoc or casual basis without interview/job-test on the post for which they do not fulfill the minimum qualifications be deferred for providing details of such cases. 4. Consideration of regularization of services of such persons who were initially appointed on ad hoc basis, but subsequently regularized after taking their job-test/interview and now requesting for regularizing their intervening period be deferred for providing details of such cases." 14. The respondent University issued the notification dated 4/6.1.2000 to follow the above resolution and not disputing Annex.15, resolution passed by the then University. Following notification was issued on 4/6.1.2000 by the present University : "The Vice-Chancellor is pleased to order that till a set of rules are framed by the newly established Agricultural University, Udaipur, pre-valent rules of RAU, Bikaner be followed by Agril. University, Udaipur. In addition to the above, various policy decisions taken by the BOM, Academic Council and other committees of RAU since 1987 shall also be applicable for Agricultural University, Udaipur till further orders." 15. In this view of the matter, if such conscientious decision has been taken by the respondent University, then, obviously after adjudging the suitability of the petitioner as per decision taken by the respondent University and order dated 22.3.2011, the respondents cannot deny the entire financial benefits accruing to the petitioner as a result of regularisation of the services from the date of his initial entry in the service. 16. 16. It may also be observed here that although the respondent University took decision to adjudge the suitability of those employees who were appoin-ted on ad hoc basis by way of taking job test/interview but, at the same time, it was also resolved that in the event of passing the job test and interview of the benefits will be extended from the date of initial entry in the service. 17. In this case, something is required to be observed with regard to inaction on the part of the University. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1978 and he was allowed to work continuously, he was allowed grade increments also; and, thereafter, the then University took decision in the year 1998 for regularization of those employees who were working on ad hoc basis after taking their job-test. The respondent University is not disputing that such resolution was accepted by the present University, then, in pursuance of sale resolution why the petitioner's case was not considered in time and, now, when the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court and this Court passed order to comply with the resolution, then, the respondent University has proceeded to act upon the resolution passed by the then University and accepted by the present University. In my opinion, administrative and management functions ought always to be just and fair and should not be arbitrary. So also, once any benefit is extended to the employees by the employer, then, it should be delayed for years together. Apathy on the part of the employer University has not only resulted in heart0burning but avoidable and unnecessary litigation arose. Further, when ultimately the Court passed order, the University again proceeded to take action upon its own interpretation; meaning thereby, persons working on the posts in the University are not implementing the resolution passed by the statutory body i.e., Board of Management thereby creating volume of litigation in the Court. 18. Further, when ultimately the Court passed order, the University again proceeded to take action upon its own interpretation; meaning thereby, persons working on the posts in the University are not implementing the resolution passed by the statutory body i.e., Board of Management thereby creating volume of litigation in the Court. 18. In the instant case, although at the time of passing interim order on 22.3.2011 a prayer was made by the University that the University is taking necessary steps for conducting job-test and interview as decided by the University while passing the resolution in post; but, again, after adjudging suitability of the petitioner the University authorities passed order treating the petitioner's regularisation in service to be a case for fresh regular appointment which has again created one more dispute, for which, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing one more writ petition. Such type of attitude is not proper. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's case stands upon sound grounds and cogent reasons to get the benefit of regularization after being adjudged suitable from the date of his initial appointment. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the above writ petitions are hereby allowed in the following terms : (A) Order dated 20.4.2011, Annex.4 to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4306/2011, is modified to the extent of providing appointment with immediately effect in terms that respondents are directed to grant all service benefits to the petitioner consequent to regularisation from the date of initial entry in the service. (B) The respondents are directed to grant benefit of revised pay scale rules promulgated by the State Government and followed by the respondent University from time to time and grant benefit to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (C) The respondents are directed to pay entire arrears to the petitioner within a period of six months after passing appropriate orders.