JUDGMENT : Appointment was accorded to the appellant petitioner by the Additional Collector (Development) under an order dated 14.2.1991 as Class-IV employee in the pay-scale of Rs.750-950 with other admissible allowances, on compassionate grounds, being a ward of a deceased Government servant. He was subjected to probation and after completion of that, his service was confirmed under an order dated 16.11.1996 passed by the Additional Collector (Development) cum Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Bikaner. By order dated 21.12.2001, he was discontinued from service along with other seven Class IV employees. Suffice to mention that the order dated 21.12.2001 refers to certain writ petitions said to be preferred by other similarly situated employees which came to be disposed off by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal No.5476-83 of 1998). On 26.12.2001 Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development (Group-I) ordered that the persons retrenched be allowed to continue in service as earlier. 2. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, the appellant was permitted to continue in service, however, by the order dated 02.1.2002 the respondents only allowed consolidated salary of Rs.2500/- per month to the appellant, instead of grant of regular pay-scale as allowed under order dated 14.2.1991 giving appointment as Class-IV employee. Yet by another order dated 23.1.2002 the appellant-petitioner was relieved from the office of Additional Collector (Development) cum Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Bikaner with instruction to report in the office of Collector, Bikaner. The Collector, Bikaner under the order dated 18.6.2002 re-employed the appellant-petitioner as Class-IV employee with consolidated salary of Rs.2500/- per month. 3. Aggrieved by the orders dated 2.1.2002 & 18.6.2002 granting consolidated salary by the Additional Collector (Development) cum Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Bikaner and by the Collector, Bikaner, respectively, the appellant preferred a petition for writ before this Court, that came to be dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 17.2.2006. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition by observing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal No.5476-83 of 1998) issued a direction to the respondents to provide appointment to the retrenched employees to the extent that is possible and, therefore, appointment afresh was given by awarding consolidated salary. 4. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition by observing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal No.5476-83 of 1998) issued a direction to the respondents to provide appointment to the retrenched employees to the extent that is possible and, therefore, appointment afresh was given by awarding consolidated salary. 4. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-petitioner is that the directions given by Apex Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal No.5476-83 of 1998) are having no application so far as the appellant herein is concerned. It is asserted that the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) was relating to the persons who were employed purely on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months or till the date of expiry of the post, whichever is earlier. Those persons preferred writ petitions before this Court with the assertion that their termination from service amounts to retrenchment and that was effected in violation of the mandatory condition precedent for a valid retrenchment as given in Part-5 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So far as the appellant herein is concerned, as per learned counsel he was working in substantive capacity, being appointed on compassionate grounds and then further subjected to a vigil by keeping him on probation. As per learned counsel an order of confirmation too was passed after successful completion of period of probation. It is asserted that the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) was pertaining to a set of employees, which cannot be compared with the petitioner who was working with the respondents in substantive capacity. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that appointment of the appellant herein too was on temporary capacity as his father was also working in temporary capacity. As per learned counsel, the appellant was retrenched from service due to non-availability of posts and, as such, subsequently he was directed to report in the office of Collector, Bikaner. 6. Heard learned counsels. 7. As per learned counsel, the appellant was retrenched from service due to non-availability of posts and, as such, subsequently he was directed to report in the office of Collector, Bikaner. 6. Heard learned counsels. 7. The thrust of the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was working with the respondents in substantive capacity being employed on compassionate grounds and, therefore, the learned Single Bench erred while treating his case at par with the workmen employed on ad-hoc basis for a limited term. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, though, made an effort to address and satisfy us that the appointment of the appellant was in temporary capacity and, therefore, his case was rightly considered at par with the persons who approached this Court and ultimately the Apex Court and, whose issues were considered and decided in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra), but we are of the considered opinion that the case of the present appellant stands on a different pedestal. 9. The fact that appointment was given to the appellant on compassionate ground clearly indicates that his appointment was in substantive capacity against a vacancy pertaining to direct recruitment. Besides that, in his order of appointment there was no term given as prescribed for other employees. The appellant was also kept on probation for a period of two years and thereafter his service was confirmed in the cadre of Class-IV employees, as such, by no stretch of imagination, he can be treated as an employee at par with the persons whose case was considered and decided in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra). The respondents in view of it erred while applying the ratio of the judgment aforesaid in the case of the present appellant. As a matter of fact,the respondents should have considered the petitioner in regular pay-scale as he was appointed under an order dated 14.2.1991. The withdrawal of regular pay-scale is apparently bad. The respondents, if had no vacancy in the Department of Rural Development, then he should have been declared surplus as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969. In the case in hand, that procedure has not been adhered by treating the petitioner at par with other fixed term appointees. 10. The respondents, if had no vacancy in the Department of Rural Development, then he should have been declared surplus as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969. In the case in hand, that procedure has not been adhered by treating the petitioner at par with other fixed term appointees. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the learned Single Bench erred while treating case of the petitioner at par with other retrenched employees, to whom the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) relates. The appeal for the reasons given above deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment passed by learned Single Bench dated 17.2.2006 is set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the appellant as a Class-IV employee appointed in regular pay-scale from the date of appointment. The order dated 23.1.2002 (Annex.6) and order dated 18.6.2002 (Annex.7) are set aside to the extent those provides consolidated salary to the petitioner instead of regular pay-scale. No order as to costs.