JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to treat the date of appointment of the petitioner as 27.05.2013 (not 02.01.2015) notionally with all consequential benefits including increment (s), also to fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly, exactly at par with that of juniors to the petitioner in accordance with the seniority list of the newly appointed Assistants of Jharkhand Secretariat Service. 2. The facts in short giving rise to the instant writ petition is that an advertisement was floated by the respondents in the year 2012 for appointment of Assistant in Jharkhand Secretariat Service. Pursuant thereto, as the petitioner were eligible, applied and appeared in the Preliminary Test as well as Mains examination and after being qualified, he was called for verification of certificates. Thereafter, he appeared for verification of the certificates on 6th February, 2013 and certificates of the petitioner were also found to be in order, but when the merit list was issued, the name of the petitioner did not figure in that list. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner obtained information under RTI Act, wherein, is was disclosed that he had secured total 514 marks in Mains, but his name was not included in the select list for the reason that there was difference in photograph of the petitioner on the application form and his appearance at the time of verification of the certificate etc. In the backdrop of aforesaid situation, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2723 of 2013, same was allowed vide order dated 14.07.2014 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission recommended the name of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Assistant in Jharkhand Secretariat Service and appointment letter vide office order contained in Memo No. 3/Appointment-001/2013 Personnel 05 dated 02.01.2015 was issued to the petitioner. After receipt of the appointment letter, he joined on 28.01.2015 and a seniority list of Assistants of Jharkhand Secretariat Service has been prepared, in which the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 20 (ka). Though this seniority list is provisional, however, the same is final for all practical purposes. 3. After receipt of the appointment letter, he joined on 28.01.2015 and a seniority list of Assistants of Jharkhand Secretariat Service has been prepared, in which the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 20 (ka). Though this seniority list is provisional, however, the same is final for all practical purposes. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that petitioner has been treated at par with all other similarly situated employees, though appointed in the year, 2015 but the petitioner has not been extended the benefit of grant of increment(s) as have been given to others, who were appointed in the year, 2013 itself. In this way, the other persons, who joined in the year, 2013 were granted three increments but the petitioner was not given the said benefits, which led to difference of pay scales, which the petitioner is drawing as on date. By now, the petitioner has been granted only one increment. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner represented before the respondents for consideration of his case and to treat the date of joining of the petitioner notionally at par with those, who were below in the seniority list, but the same was rejected by the respondents. Having no option left, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Shiv Shankar strenuously urges that the action of the respondents for not granting the increments etc to the petitioner at par with those, who are juniors to the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and in colourable exercise of power. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner, only because of the lethargic approach on the part of the respondents, the actual appointment of the petitioner was delayed. Learned counsel further submits that when the delay in accepting the joining of the petitioner was caused at the instance of the respondents, the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents are duty bound to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner including increments at par with those, who are juniors to the petitioner in accordance with the Judgment dated 14.07.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2723 of 2013 as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in delaying of his joining. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents are duty bound to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner including increments at par with those, who are juniors to the petitioner in accordance with the Judgment dated 14.07.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2723 of 2013 as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in delaying of his joining. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not claiming salary of that period as he has not worked. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel places heavy reliance on a reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prakash Chandra Agarwal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1985) 4 SCC 105 and further the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in case of Harendra Ghosh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in W.P. (S) No. 1352 of 2007. Learned counsel further argues that Rule 89 of the Bihar Service Code is totally misplaced in the present case and Rule 77 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules does not apply in the present case. Therefore, the date of appointment of the petitioner may be notionally treated as 27.05.2013 for all purposes and not 02.01.2015. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Kanchan Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that they cannot be considered for shifting the date of notional appointment from 02.01.2015 to 27.05.2013. Learned counsel further argues that though he was one of the successful candidates of the competitive examination, but his appointment was delayed on account of his photograph in the application form which did not match with his original face. The appointment was made in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 2723 of 2013. Learned counsel further argues that the difference in the salary is on account of the fact that those who joined in 2013 have been allowed three increments, whereas the petitioner has been allowed one increment since petitioner actually joined on 28.01.2015. The petitioner has not worked from 2013 rather worked from January, 2015, he cannot be allowed increments from 2013 even notionally for the period he was not in service. Learned draws the attention of the Court towards Rule 58 and 85 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules. The petitioner has not worked from 2013 rather worked from January, 2015, he cannot be allowed increments from 2013 even notionally for the period he was not in service. Learned draws the attention of the Court towards Rule 58 and 85 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Financial Rules. Learned counsel further argues that after getting recommendation from Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha issued appointment letter to the petitioner, the delay is caused by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and not by the respondent-State. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the instant writ petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The joining of the petitioner was delayed due to the laches on the part of the respondents not of the petitioner. This Court in W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2007, considering the same issue and has held that : “In view of these facts and looking to Annexure-3 to the writ petition, I, hereby, direct the respondents to issue necessary office order, circular, treating 22nd December, 2003 (the date on which other successful candidates, for the post of Teacher, have been issued appointment letters) as the date of appointment of the petitioners.” 7. The petitioner is not claiming salary of the said period, but admittedly, if date of joining of the petitioner is not shifted from 02.01.2015 to 27.05.2013 he will lose his seniority and other benefits. The same issue fell for consideration before this Court in case of Ram Lal Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand, passed in W.P. (S) No.2211 of 2009, which was disposed of on 12.09.2012 and the same view was reiterated for consideration of notional date of appointment w.e.f the date the others were allowed to join. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, I hereby, direct the respondents to issue suitable order, treating 27.05.2013 (the date on which juniors to the petitioner, for the post of Assistant, have been appointed) as the date of appointment of the petitioner and further direct to issue suitable order giving notional date of appointment w.e.f. 27.05.2013 to the petitioner. 9. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands allowed.