JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. - The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to hold and declare the date of initial appointment of the petitioner as 18.03.2013 and grant consequential benefits to the petitioners by treating their date of initial appointment as 18.03.2013. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to grant Five Additional Increments w.e.f. the date of appointments i.e. 3rd February, 2018 with all consequential benefits as other similarly situated persons were getting the same, who have been appointed arising out of the same advertisement as Associate Professor in BIT, Sindri and to give seniority from the date of initial appointment i.e. 18.03.2013. 2. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners were working as Lecturer from the year, 2006 (now re -designated as Assistant Professor after Sixth Pay Commission) in the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, BIT, Sindri till their appointment as Associate Professor on 3rd February, 2018 in BIT Sindri. The Department of Science and Technology floated an advertisement being Advertisement No. 08/2007 through the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for filling up the post of Lecturer, Assistant Professor and Professors in different departments of BIT, Sindri including Telecommunication Engineering. The requisite qualification for candidates applying for the post of Assistant Professors was Ph.D. Degree with First Class at Bachelors or Masters Level in appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology with three years experience in Teaching/Industry/Research at the level of Lecturer or equivalent and also a corrigendum was published to the aforesaid advertisement whereby candidates having first class degree at Master''s Level in appropriate Branch of Engineering /Tech. with five years experience in Teaching /Industry/Research at the level of Lecturer or equivalent were allowed to apply provided such candidates would obtain Ph.D Degree within seven years from the date of appointment as Assistant Professor. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners having requisite qualification as per the corrigendum, applied for the same i.e. for the post of Assistant Professor (redesignated as Associate Professor under 6th Pay Revision) in Telecommunication Engineering, BIT, Sindri. Thereafter, both the petitioners were called for interview by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and they appeared on the given time and date. After conducting the interview, Jharkhand Public Service Commission recommended the name of the petitioners for appointment to the said post. Thereafter, both the petitioners were called for interview by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and they appeared on the given time and date. After conducting the interview, Jharkhand Public Service Commission recommended the name of the petitioners for appointment to the said post. Subsequently, they were called for verification of their certificates by the concerned Department through letter Nos. 880 and 881 respectively, dated 19.04.2012. 3. It is specific case of the petitioners that as their names were recommended and their certificates were duly verified, the petitioners were under bonafide belief that they would be appointed against the posts advertised vide Advertisement NO. 8/07, but no steps were taken for their appointment. Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of their cases, the petitioners moved before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2361 of 2013 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 26.08.2015 in terms of ratio laid down in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Mithilesh Kumar in LPA No. 151/2014 dated 16.06.2015. Against the said order of learned Single Judge, the petitioner as well as State of Jharkhand preferred separate LPA being LPA No. 658/2015 and 145/2016 respectively. Both LPA were heard together and Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court allowed the LPA of the petitioners and LPA of the State of Jharkhand & Ors stood dismissed. The said order of the Hon''ble Division Bench was tested before the Hon''ble Apex Court and SLP preferred by the State was dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2017. In pursuant to the affirmation of the order of the Hon''ble Division Bench, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Associate Professors in Telecom Engineering Department of BIT, Sindri vide Notification dated 02.02.2018 contained in Memo No. 181 w.e.f. 03.02.2018. It is the further case of the petitioners that similarly situated persons arising out of the same advertisement have appointed on 18.03.2013, whereas the petitioners due to fault of the respondents were appointed on 03.02.2018, therefore, the petitioners were entitled for the benefit of seniority as well as increments w.e.f. 18.03.2013 on the date similarly situated persons have been appointed, with all consequential benefits, but the same was not considered by the respondents though several representations were filed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have been compelled to knock the door of this Court for redressal of their grievances. 4. Mr. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have been compelled to knock the door of this Court for redressal of their grievances. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to fault on the part of the respondents, the petitioners are put under huge finanacial loss of approximately Rs. 24,32,000/- (till the date of appointment 03.02.2018 without interest) and recursive loss is huge as petitioners would get five increments less for next 20/25 years respectively of their services. Learned counsel further argues that the action of the respondent is violative of the Fundamental and legal Rights of the petitioners as similarly situated candidates have been appointed as per the original requirement under the Advertisement through which they have applied and are getting salary w.e.f. 18.03.2013, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit w.e.f. 18.03.2013 itself. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioners were not appointed in spite of recommendation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for the reason that under Sixth Pay Revision, the requirement of Ph.D. Degree for an Associate Professor (Assistant Professor under the Fifth Pay Revision) is compulsory, ignoring the fact that the advertisement No. 08/2007 was published much prior to the implementation of the Sixth Pay Revision and the appointment process had commenced and as such, the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their appointment from 18.03.2013 with all consequential benefits including seniority. 5. No counter-affidavit has been filed. However, learned counsels for the respondents very fairly submit that since the representations of the petitioners are pending before the respondents and till date no decision has been taken, suffice it would be if a direction be given to the concerned respondent to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioners, within stipulated time. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioners needs consideration. The respondents have already implemented the orders of this Court as well as Hon''ble Apex Court and have appointed the petitioner w.e.f. 03.02.2018. The petitioners are only aggrieved by the date of appointment, seniority and other consequential benefits as similarly situated persons have already been appointed pursuant to same advertisement w.e.f. 18.03.2013. The respondents have already implemented the orders of this Court as well as Hon''ble Apex Court and have appointed the petitioner w.e.f. 03.02.2018. The petitioners are only aggrieved by the date of appointment, seniority and other consequential benefits as similarly situated persons have already been appointed pursuant to same advertisement w.e.f. 18.03.2013. Since, the representation of the petitioners are still pending before the respondents, the respondent-State is directed to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioners taking into account the order passed by this Court as well as Hon''ble Apex Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Needless to say that if the petitioners are found entitled for consideration of their appointment from 18.03.2013, seniority and other consequential benefits, an order to that effect shall be passed, with a copy to the petitioners with all consequential benefits including seniority, within a period of six weeks thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.