JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred these writ petition making following prayers: W.P. No. 5038/2014 (Rampal Singh) "(i) The record of the case may be called for and by an appropriate order or direction the impugned order dated 24.5.2014 (Anx. 13) may kindly be quashed and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all the consequential benefits according to the UGC pay scale rules with effect from date of eligibility in the case of the petitioner afresh with interest of 6% as done in other cases etc. Any other benefit which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (ii) If during the pendency of the petition any order in pursuance to impugned order Anx. 13 issued, the same may also be quashed and set aside, and meanwhile the petitioner may be granted salary as per UGC pay scales as given earlier in February 2014. (iii) During the pendency of the petition the effect and operation of the impugned order Anx. 13 dated 24.5.2014 may kindly be stayed. (iv) The petition may be allowed with costs." W.P. No. 3935/2015 (Shakuntala Kewalia) "(i) The record of the case may be called for and by an appropriate order or direction the impugned inaction of the respondents in pursuance to the petitioner of not granting benefits with effect from date of eligibility may kindly be criticized and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all the consequential benefits according to the UGC pay scale rules with effect from date of eligibility afresh with interest of 6% as done in other cases etc. Any other benefit which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (ii) If during the pendency of the petition any order in pursuance to impugned inaction issued denying the grant of said benefit to the petitioner, the same may also be quashed and set aside, and meanwhile the petitioner may be granted the said benefit provisionally and revision in pension and pensionary benefits thereon as per UGC pay scales. (ii) If during the pendency of the petition any order in pursuance to impugned inaction issued denying the grant of said benefit to the petitioner, the same may also be quashed and set aside, and meanwhile the petitioner may be granted the said benefit provisionally and revision in pension and pensionary benefits thereon as per UGC pay scales. (iii) The petition may be allowed with costs." W.P. No. 1047/2016 (Gauri Shanker Vyas) "(i) The record of the case may be called for and by an appropriate order or direction the impugned action of the respondents in pursuance of impugned orders dated 2.2.2015 & 20.8.2015 (Annx. 11) to the extent of granting benefits with effect from date of eligibility may kindly be criticized and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all the consequential benefits according to the UGC pay scale rules with effect from date of eligibility in the case of the petitioner afresh with interest of 6% as done in other cases etc. Any other benefit which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (ii) If during the pendency of the petition any order in pursuance to impugned orders issued, the same may also be quashed and set aside, and meanwhile the petitioner may be granted salary as per UGC pay scales as given fixed vide order dated 26.2.2014 (Annx. 4). (iii) The petition may be allowed with costs." 2. Facts as noticed by this Court in these writ petitions are that the petitioner Rampal Singh was working on the post of Library Assistant since 01.07.1988 with the respondent-University. He was given first promotion on the post of Junior Technical Assistant and then second promotion was accorded to him on the post of Senior Technical Assistant on 19.02.2005. 3. Petitioner Shakuntala Kewalia was initially appointed on the post of Library Assistant on 20.12.1983. Her first promotion was on the post of Junior Technical Assistant and she was accorded second promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant on 17.8.1994 on ad hoc basis, which was confirmed on 01.04.1997. 4. Petitioner Gauri Shanker Vyas, who was initially appointed as Library Assistant on 01.07.1988, was given first promotion to the post of Junior Technical Assistant and then accorded second promotion on the post of Senior Technical Assistant on 06.10.2006. 5. 4. Petitioner Gauri Shanker Vyas, who was initially appointed as Library Assistant on 01.07.1988, was given first promotion to the post of Junior Technical Assistant and then accorded second promotion on the post of Senior Technical Assistant on 06.10.2006. 5. The qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant stipulated in the Rules is as follows: "Syndicate vide its Rs. No. 63/94 Dated 17-05-1994 had approved the New qualification proposed by the committee constituted by the Syndicate to review the existing rules for Appointment/Promotion of Lib. Staff. The new qualifications for the post of S.T.A. are as under P. No. 06. Mode of recruitment: 1. 100% promotion from amongst J.T.A. 2. Post sanctioned by U.G.C. shall be filled by direct recruitment Qualifications: 1. For Promotion A. (i) Graduate or equivalent (ii) Bachelors of degree in Lib. Science or equivalent degree/Diploma pass (iii) Three experiences of working as J.T.A. OR B. As revised from time to time by the Syndicate." 6. The petitioners were granted benefit of UGC pay scale for the post of Senior Technical Assistant vide resolution No. 1/2012 with effect from 30.05.2012. The petitioners and other similarly situated persons were granted benefit of the UGC pay scale on the basis of aforementioned resolution, which is also annexed as Annx. 2 the writ petition. 7. On 30.03.2014 another communication was issued by the respondent-University whereby the communication regarding UGC pay scale was subjected to approval of the State Government. The petitioners also stated that vide notification dated 18.05.1985 the respondent University had resolved that as far as possible the legal issues of identical nature will be resolved by the University itself and thus, the petitioners were waiting for the University to resolve the same by itself. The respondents, however, are not paying the UGC pay scale for the post of Senior Technical Assistant on the ground that the resolution dated 30.05.2012 has not been approved by the State Government and also on the ground that the petitioners were not eligible for receiving the same. The relevant portion of resolution dated 30.05.2012 is reproduced herein under: "1. That some of the Senior Technical Assistants working in various branches of University Library are demanding UGC Pay Scales. It is observed that some of the Senior Technical Assistants are not strictly fulfilling the UGC qualification i.e. "First or Second Class B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. Degree plus a first or second class M.Lib. That some of the Senior Technical Assistants working in various branches of University Library are demanding UGC Pay Scales. It is observed that some of the Senior Technical Assistants are not strictly fulfilling the UGC qualification i.e. "First or Second Class B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. Degree plus a first or second class M.Lib. Sc., Degree or first or second class M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. Degree and a first or second class B.Lib.Sc. Or a Diploma in Library Science". In this respect, the committee studied the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 3260/2004 & 3259/2004 - M.D. Lohiya & Others vs. State & Others, A.N. Rjappan & Others vs. State and Others decided on 4.1.2007 Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 644/2007 & 496/2007 decided on 13.11.2009. 2. The Committee noted that the University has given UGC Grade to Shri K.L. Rai (vide Court Judgment dated 17.3.2008) though the similar privilege was not given to the other Senior Technical Assistants. The Committee also took into consideration the resolution of the Senate vide letter No. JDR/U/Estt/6063 dated 18th May, 1985 which states that "as far as possible, legal cases of identical nature be resolved by the University itself and they need not go to the Court." 3. The committee also noted the memorandum No. F-3 (26) Edu/Gr.IV/88 dated 24.4.1993 issued from the Secretary, Government of India, Higher Education Department, Jaipur vide which the UGC Grade were given to the College Librarians of equal cadre. 4. The Committee noted the minutes of the Syndicate sub-committee to review and revise the rules for promotion of staff in library cadre dated 11.12.1993 wherein it was stated that the "UGC qualification may be relaxed for the existing staff." The above Committee was of the opinion that "the qualification prescribed by the UGC are not in keeping with earlier recommendations for parallel posts in other cadres and, therefore, be modified to provide opportunity for staff already working in the University Libraries. A case in point is the New Ordinance 317(A). 5. The legal opinion given by Professor R.N. Sharma, the then Dean, Faculty of law wherein he categorically opined that the existing Senior Technical Assistants in various branches of the University Library may be given UGC Grade. 6. The committee considered the notification No. JDR/U/Estt/7520 dated 9th June, 1986 pertaining to the qualification of Senior Technical Assistants which favoured relaxation of UGC qualification for existing staff. 6. The committee considered the notification No. JDR/U/Estt/7520 dated 9th June, 1986 pertaining to the qualification of Senior Technical Assistants which favoured relaxation of UGC qualification for existing staff. In view of the above factors/documents/circulars as well as legal opinion given by Prof. R.N. Sharma, which was principally approved by the Syndicate in its last meeting held on 10.12.2011. The committee resolved that the following persons may be given UGC Grade and their pay may be notionally fixed from the date of their eligibility." 8. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking such UGC grade for the post of Senior Technical Assistant with effect from their promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant i.e. 19.05.2005, 01.04.1997 and 06.10.2006 respectively. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention to the judgment passed in M.D. Lohiya & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, decided on 04.01.2007, which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition, wherein it has been held by this Court as follows: "The university in pursuant to the orders passed by the Government of Rajasthan on 24.4.1993 read with 5.8.1993 on basis of resolution No. 71/94 undertaken by the Syndicate ordered to revise the pay scales of Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants by order dated 7.7.1994. Such revision was made by the university with a view to maintain parity with regard to grant of pay scales to the Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants vis-a-vis Librarians working with the Government. It is true that before granting the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 a sanction was required to be taken by the university but in totality of facts and circumstances of the case such sanction is quite formal and the respondent State should have granted it ex-post facto. I have intentionally used the term "formal sanction" for the reason that this Court by judgment dated 8.10.1990 (Civil Writ Petition No. 608/82) declared the Librarians working in Government Degree Colleges entitled for getting the pay scales revised in accordance with the recommendations made by the UGC. The Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants working with the respondent university for all purposes stand at par with the Librarians working in Government Degree Colleges, therefore, a cautious decision was taken by Government of Rajasthan to allow the same pay scales to them also. The Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants working with the respondent university for all purposes stand at par with the Librarians working in Government Degree Colleges, therefore, a cautious decision was taken by Government of Rajasthan to allow the same pay scales to them also. Looking to this fact in any event the State Government was required to accord sanction for grant of pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 to the Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants working with the respondent university including the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1986. It is really surprising that the State Government instead of granting ex-post facto sanction despite a request made by the Vice Chancellor choose to victimise the employees of the university. The act of the respondent State, therefore, is not only discourteous to the university but is also unjust and arbitrary. I also failed to understand as to why the respondent State has yet not allowed the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to the Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants working with the respondent university though the same has already been granted to the Librarians working with Government Degree Colleges w.e.f. 1.9.1996. As stated above, the respondents are under obligation to maintain parity with regard to grant of pay scales among the Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants and Librarians working with Government Degree Colleges. Non grant of pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to the Senior Technical Assistants/Professional Assistants working with the respondent university including the petitioners w.e.f. 1.9.1996 is highly discriminatory. Accordingly, these petitions for writ deserve acceptance. The same, therefore, are allowed. The petitioners are declared entitled for grant of pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The State Government, therefore, is directed to grant ex-post facto sanction for payment of such pay scales to the petitioners. The recovery sought to be made by the respondent university, by treating the grant of pay scale Rs. 2200-4000 to the petitioners erroneous, is declared illegal. The respondents are further directed to allow the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The arrears accruing as a consequent to the fixation sought to be made in terms above shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from today with an interest @ 6% per annum." 10. The respondents are further directed to allow the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The arrears accruing as a consequent to the fixation sought to be made in terms above shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from today with an interest @ 6% per annum." 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court towards judgment in the case of Kailash Lal Rai v. Jai Narain Vyas University (SBCWP No. 2723/2002) decided on 17.03.2008 whereby benefits of UGC grade were allowed for the post of Senior Technical Assistant to petitioner therein in light of judgment in the case of M.D. Lohiya (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited judgment of this Court in Ram Singh Naruka v. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University & Another (SBCWP No. 900/2012) whereby the same relief has been allowed in light of M.D. Lohiya's judgment. The learned counsel also referred to judgment passed in Devi Singh Bhati v. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University & Another (SBCWP No. 11408/2011) decided on 17.05.2013 whereby the same benefits have been granted to the petitioner therein in the light of in M.D. Lohiya's judgment (supra). 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment delivered in the case of Laxmi Narain Sharma & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 2002 (1) RLR 771 , relevant portion of which is as follows: "10. The State of Rajasthan is a welfare State and it is not an ordinary employer or a businessman or industrialist or a shopkeeper, has to exhibit itself as a model employer. It is not a case of the respondents that the benefits of the judgment of this Court was given only to the Librarians who are possessing Ist or IInd Class Degree or PG Degree in Library Science or in Academic. This Court puts this question to the learned counsel for the respondents and he is unable to give any reply to the same. In the absence of any reply to this question otherwise also it is very difficult to accept that these benefits were given only to those existing Librarians who are having Ist or IInd class Degree in PG Academic only in Library Science. In the absence of any reply to this question otherwise also it is very difficult to accept that these benefits were given only to those existing Librarians who are having Ist or IInd class Degree in PG Academic only in Library Science. The respondents, it is to be stated at the costs of the repetition, have failed to produce any material on record that this upgraded UGC pay scale has been restricted by the UGC to those existing Librarians who are holding the Ist or IInd Class Degree or PG Degree in Academic and Ist or IInd Class Degree in Library Science. Unless it is established as a fact to the satisfaction of the Court that subject to the possessing of Degree of Ist or IInd Class in Academic and also in Library Science, this upgraded UGC pay-scales can't be given to the petitioners, the State Government is not correct in its approach to restrict the availability of this benefit of upgraded UGC pay scales on the terms and conditions as given out in Annexure-R1. 11. The whole approach of the respondents in this matter is not befitting to the officers of the welfare State. After this decision in fact, the respondents should have voluntarily extended the benefit of this upgraded pay scale to all the existing Librarians but the same had not been done. On the contrary, the respondents compelled the petitioners to approach this Court." 12. The respondent-University in the reply has stated that the judgment rendered in the case of M.D. Lohiya (supra) only decides on grant of UGC grade to Senior Technical Assistant vis-a-vis Librarians working in Government Degree Colleges and therefore, relief of grant of UGC scale on the post of Senior Technical Assistant is only with the perspective of equivalence. 13. The University has further stated in the reply that the petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility criteria to be promoted to the post of Senior Technical Assistant. It is also averred that the minutes of meeting for the resolution granting benefit of UGC pay scale to Senior Technical Assistants made it subject to approval of the State Government and the State Government has not yet approved the same and therefore, granting such benefit would be contrary to legal proposition. It is also averred that the minutes of meeting for the resolution granting benefit of UGC pay scale to Senior Technical Assistants made it subject to approval of the State Government and the State Government has not yet approved the same and therefore, granting such benefit would be contrary to legal proposition. It is also stated in the reply that promotion of the petitioners was ad hoc and on temporary basis and therefore, there is no question of any subsequent benefit being conferred upon the petitioners in light of the fact that they have been accorded such promotion. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Another v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , relevant portion whereof is as follows: "37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin." 15. learned counsel for the respondents further referred to judgments passed in Union of India & Others v. G.R. Rama Krishna & Another, (2013) SCC 512 wherein it has been laid down that any relaxation contrary to Rules cannot be admitted for grant of any kind of benefit. 16. learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that the University has extended parity to its employees in granting UGC Pay Scale on the post of Senior Technical Assistant at its own and the State Government should not be held liable because none of the benefits were conferred by taking prior approval of the State Government. 16. learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that the University has extended parity to its employees in granting UGC Pay Scale on the post of Senior Technical Assistant at its own and the State Government should not be held liable because none of the benefits were conferred by taking prior approval of the State Government. This argument of the State Government cannot be sustained because after Memorandum of Understanding signed between the State Government and the University, inter-relationship of both is well governed and it is expected that every decision that the University takes shall have an approval of the State Government or at least the State Government shall be responsible for those consequences. It is also important to note that the State Government did not have any Rules whatsoever for grant of promotion to the petitioners on the post of Senior Technical Assistant in the year 2005 as the same was granted strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules of the University and therefore, any denial of consequential benefits cannot be taken as a stand by the State Government. 17. This Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners were entitled for their lawful promotion on the post of Senior Technical Assistant and the same has been granted on 19.02.2005, 01.04.1997 and 06.10.2006 respectively; therefore, the respondents cannot go back from their stand and deny any benefit arising out of petitioners holding the post of Senior Technical Assistant since then. If there was any anomaly in their promotion on the post of Senior Technical Assistant then the respondents could have taken steps to revert back or taken appropriate action therefor, however, no such action has been taken and the petitioners continued on the post of Senior Technical Assistant. At one stage in the year 2012 the respondents themselves took resolution, finding the petitioners entitled for grant of UGC grade. 18. It is true that the respondents have pointed out that the UGC requirement of First or Second Class in concerned degree of Graduation or Post-graduation is not there with the petitioners but still as per Rules the petitioners were entitled to hold the post of Senior Technical Assistant at the time when promotion on the post was granted to them. The Resolution of the University also indicates that Mr. K.L. Rai, Mr. M.D. Lohiya and Mr. The Resolution of the University also indicates that Mr. K.L. Rai, Mr. M.D. Lohiya and Mr. A.N. Rjappan had all been granted UGC grade for the post of Senior Technical Assistant from the date these persons were holding the post. The expert report/legal opinion submitted by the University, which is submitted as Annexure 8 with the writ petition, clearly states that not granting of benefit of UGC pay scale to Senior Technical Assistants would be in violation of Article14 of the Constitution of India. Since number of persons have been granted such benefit then it was in the interest of justice that such benefit should be granted to all such employees from the date when they were holding the post accordingly. 19. In the case of petitioner Shakuntala Kewalia, learned counsel for the respondents states that the petition is grossly delayed by 20 years and therefore, such relief cannot be granted by the respondents. The learned counsel fortified his argument by citing judgments of Amrit Lal Berry, K.N. Kapur & Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Central Revenue and Others, AIR 1975 SC 538 ; Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. & Another v. K. Thangappan & Another, AIR 2006 SC 1581; City Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Others, AIR 2009 SC 571 ; State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri & Others, AIR 2016 SC 3006 ; Smt. Kulshree v. Raj. Small Industries Corporation Ltd. & Another, RLW 2004 (4) Raj. 526; Balwant Singh Parihar & Another v. Union of India & Others, 2006 (3) WLC (Raj.) 598. 20. The aforementioned precedents of law stated by learned counsel for the respondent-State clearly establish that an unexplained delay will disentitle the person to any relief claimed by him. However, in the case of petitioner Shakuntala Kewalia, the delay is not unexplained because the benefit was continuously accruing to the petitioner and the matter was continuously in consideration before the respondent University; so much that various resolutions, clarifications and approvals were being consistently sought by the respondent University so as to redress the grievances of Senior Technical Assistants for grant of UGC pay scale. It is also noted that continuous adjudication in various cases preferred by similarly situate persons was going on and therefore, the respondent University could not take a final stand until now regarding entitlement of UGC pay scale for the post of Senior Technical Assistant and therefore, this cannot be said to be a case where the delay is such that it would be fatal upon the prayer made by the petitioner. 21. Thus, this Court holds that the petitioners who were qualified, eligible and consciously granted promotion to the post of Senior Technical Assistant on 19.02.2005, 01.04.1997 and 06.10.2006 respectively are entitled for all benefits of UGC Pay Scale, from the date of such promotion on the post. All three writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period of 3 months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of this judgment before respondents.