JUDGMENT Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. Petitioners assail, in this group of writ petitions, propriety, legality and validity of communications / letters dated 21.02.2013 and 28.06.2013 issued by respondents No.3 and 4, respectively communicating their revised pay fixation. Petitioners’ pay fixation has been done taking into account the date of their appointments and accordingly giving them benefit of “Career Advancement Scheme” (herein after ‘CAS’ for brevity). By communication dated 21.02.2013 it was informed that CAS benefits given are not according to the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 whereunder the benefits would be available from the date of acquiring requisite qualifications and as such their pay fixation needs revision. It is further communicated that accordingly their pay be fixed and revised pay fixation be recorded in their service books and the same be sent for certification. 3. Indisputable position emerging in this group of writ petitions is that petitioners were appointed as lecturers by the respondent management, by following due procedure viz., issuing advertisement, selection by duly constituted selection committee and their appointments were also approved by the University. The petitioners possess all other qualifications, save and except that they have not passed National Eligibility Test (NET) or State Eligibility Test (SET), as was required. Since no candidate having NET / SET qualification was available the petitioners came to be appointed. Petitioners continued in service without any interruption. 4. In due course of time, the petitioners were granted benefits of senior pay scale so also selection grade and accordingly entries were taken in their respective service books. Pay fixation of the petitioners was done by the Joint Director of Higher Education, after following due procedure. 5. The respondent authorities are not in a position to dispute that the factual position involved in these matters is similar to the one as is involved in the group of writ petitions viz. Writ petition No.5271/2013 and other connected matters, decided by us today and state that they adopt the stand taken by the State in those writ petitions, in the present group of writ petitions as well. 6. Respondents No.1 to 3, in Writ petition from the said group of petitions, bearing Writ Petition No.5271/2013 have submitted affidavit in reply which has been taken into account while deciding said group of writ petitions. 7. 6. Respondents No.1 to 3, in Writ petition from the said group of petitions, bearing Writ Petition No.5271/2013 have submitted affidavit in reply which has been taken into account while deciding said group of writ petitions. 7. Having regard to the factual position that all the petitioners, in this group of petitions, are appointed as lecturers in their respective subjects during the period from 1991 to 2000, by a duly constituted selection committee and after following the requisite procedure and that initial approval to their appointments has been culminated into permanent is undisputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioners possess all other requisite qualifications, except National Eligibility Test (NET) or State Eligibility Test (SET), as was required and further that since no candidate having NET / SET qualification was available the petitioners were appointed. In due course of time, the petitioners were granted benefits of senior pay scale so also selection grade and accordingly entries were taken in their respective service books. Pay fixation of the petitioners was done by the concerned, accordingly, after following due procedure. 8. We have already taken into account in the decision in said writ petitions No. 5271/2013 and others that pursuant to resolution of UGC in its meeting dated 08.07.2011, the General Secretary of the Maharashtra Federation of University and College Teachers Organization, under a letter dated 25.08.2011, has been communicated that “Therefore, the services of such teachers for all purpose should be counted from the date of their regular appointment,” in respect of appointments of lecturers during the period from September 1991 to April 2000. 9. In the present petitions as well, it appears that despite aforesaid, the Joint Director of Higher Education has issued communication dated 21.02.2013 making reference to Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 stating that CAS benefits would be available to the teachers only from the date of acquiring eligibility and as such pay scales granted to petitioners need revision and to furnish information accordingly. In the present group of petitions, the petitioners make reference to Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013 and claim benefits accordingly. 10. In the present group of petitions, the petitioners make reference to Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013 and claim benefits accordingly. 10. This Court has also taken into account that pursuant to the statement on behalf of the State Government, Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013 has been issued declaring that the notification dated 19.09.1991 of UGC would not apply to the lecturers appointed before 23.10.1992 and further that appointments during 23.10.1992 to 03.04.2000 without possessing NET / SET, Ph.D. M.Phil would be considered for all purposes on the condition that their appointments have been made on regular basis, the appointment should have been made after following the procedure, the lecturers shall possess all other qualifications except NET / SET and that proposals of such lecturers should have been forwarded to UGC for approval. 11. We have also taken into account, in the aforesaid group of writ petitions, the decision of this Court rendered on 01.08.2013 in Writ Petition No.11744/2010 finding that the benefits of CAS cannot be denied to such teachers by considering them ‘ad hoc’ appointees. 12. It is nobody’s case that the petitioners are not eligible or their appointments have not been approved by the University or for that matter they do not possess other requisite qualifications. Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013 has been issued making reference to the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001. It has not been case of the respondents that the petitioners do not fulfill the conditions referred to under Government Resolution dated 27.06.2013. As such, revision of fixation of pay of petitioners with reference to Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 is unsustainable. 13. Having regard to the decision rendered in aforesaid group of writ petitions viz, writ petition No.5271/2013 and other connected matters, the communications impugned in the present petitions, which are issued to the petitioners affecting their pay scales adversely, are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 14. Consequently, all the petitions succeed. The impugned communications 21.02.2013 issued by Joint Director of Higher Education and further communications issued by the respondent No.4 college dated 28.06.2013 pursuant thereto, stand quashed and set aside, and would be ineffective and inoperative. 15. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in each matter with no order as to costs.