ORDER : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and further be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction whereby the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for placement in the senior and selection scale by counting his previous temporary service rendered under College Education from 30.08.1976 to 15.09.1980 under career advancement Scheme and respondents be directed to grant senior scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and selection scale w.e.f. 22.08.1990 to the petitioner and passed necessary orders in this regard making fixation of the petitioner in the senior/selection scale by counting his previous service and make payment of arrears with interest @ 24% per annum. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of College Lecturer on temporary basis in S.D. Government College, Beawar on 30.8.1976 and thereafter he was appointed by R.P.S.C. as a permanent lecturer w.e.f. 21.1.1982 at S.K. Government College, Sikar. The petitioner retired as lecturer and is seeking counting of his services from the date of his temporary appointment. 3. Counsel for the petitioner Shri L.S. Shekhawat submits that the University Grants Commission promulgated career advancement Scheme for the University and College Teachers w.e.f. 1.1.1986 which provides for senior and selection scales. Limited contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that while computing selection scale, the petitioner's initiation of service has to be taken as the 30.8.1976 instead of 21.1.1982. Counsel for the petitioner has shown that the previous service has been counted by the respondents themselves vide Annexure-11 dated 25.6.2008 in which while invoking Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1986 the past service has been accepted and the break has been condoned, although for the purpose of pension alone. Counsel for the petitioner has shown that the previous service has been counted by the respondents themselves vide Annexure-11 dated 25.6.2008 in which while invoking Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1986 the past service has been accepted and the break has been condoned, although for the purpose of pension alone. The order dated 25.06.2008 reads as follows:- jktLFkku ljdkj dk;kZy; vk;qDr] dkWyst f’k{kk] jktLFkku] t;iqj Øekad% ,Q 1¼33½LFkk@fudkf’k@86@319 fnukad 25-06-08 vkns’k Jh lqHkk"k pUn tSu] iwoZ O;k[;krk fof/k] jktdh; egkfo|ky;] /kkSyiqj dh vLFkkbZ lsokvksa esa fuEu lsok O;o/kku jgs gSa%& dze- la- O;o/kku vof/k O;o/kku fnol 1 16-8-79] 17-8-79 ,oa 15-9-80 03 fnol mDr lsok O;o/kku dks jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼isU’ku½ fu;e 1996 ds fu;e 27 ,oa foRr foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk dzekad ,Q 15¼7½ foRr@fu;e@97 fnukad 28-10- 02 ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr isU’ku ifjykHkksa dh x.kuk ds mn~ns’; ls ,rn~}kjk d.Mksu fd;k tkrk gSA mDr O;o/kku vof/k isa’ku ds fy;s vgZdkjh lsok dh x.kuk esa lfEefyr ugha ekuh tkosxhA ¼iou dqekj xks;y½ vk;qDr Øekad% ,Q 1¼33½LFkk@fudkf’k@86@320&24 fnukad 25-06-08 izfrfyfi fuEu dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq %& 1- 'kklu mi lfpo] f’k{kk] ¼xzqi&3½ foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqjA 2- funs’kd] isa’ku foHkkx] t;iqj 3- izkpk;Z] jktdh; egkfo|ky;] /kkSyiqj ¼Jh lqHkk"k pUn tSu] O;k[;krk fof/k dh ewy lsok iqfLrdk lfgr½ 4- Jh lqHkk"k pUn tSu] iwoZ O;k[;krk fof/k] jktdh; egkfo|ky;] /kkSyiqjA 5- jf{kr i=koyhA ¼Mk- ,e-,y- xqIrk½ la;qDr funs’kd ¼iz’kklu½^^ Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Banaras Hindu University Varanasi & Anr. Vs. Dr. Indra Pratap Singh- 1992 Supp (2) SCC 2. Relevant para 9 and 10 reproduced as under:- "9. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the expression "eight years of continuous service" in para 2(a) of the scheme should be understood in a reasonable manner having regard to the underlying aim and object. Para 2(a) itself expressly recognizes that the eight years' service may be in more than one institution, the only requirement being a minimum of four years service in the institution where he is being considered for promotion under the scheme. In case of shift from one University to other or from one institution to the other-it can reasonably be presumed that there is bound to be some interval. The interval may be of a day, a week or a month. In case of shift from one University to other or from one institution to the other-it can reasonably be presumed that there is bound to be some interval. The interval may be of a day, a week or a month. What is relevant is not the length of the interval or break, as it may be called, but its nature. We do not mean to say that length of such interval is totally irrelevant; what we mean, however, is that one must take into consideration the reason for which break or the circumstances in which such break-has occurred. Another factor to be taken into consideration in understanding and construing the said expression is the object underlying the said requirement. According to us, the object is to ensure eight years' teaching experience. It is true that there is a break of three months 20 days in the respondent's service and teaching experience. We also take note of the fact that it was not the vacation time for academic institutions. But this circumstance must be weighed against a countervailing circumstance in favour of the respondent viz., his re-appointment on a permanent basis in the very same department in the University in the year 1982. As stated above, he served as a temporary lecturer from 26.8.1974 till 31.3.1980. From 1.4.1980 to 20.7.1980 remained without a job. On 21.7.1980 he was appointed as a Reader in the Nagpur University in the very same subject-where he served till 20.9.1982. On 22.9.82 he was appointed as a permanent lecturer in this very University and in the same category and subject. On this occasion, he was granted a good number of increments. The University says that these increments were granted with a view to protect his last pay drawn by him in the Nagpur University while the respondent says that it was granted not only for the said purpose but also in the light of his past service in this University. It is true that he was not given seniority since 26.8.1974. Even so the question is whether the gap of three months 20 days is such a long gap as not to merit condonation or for that matter to be termed as a break in service for purposes of para 2 (a) of the scheme. 10. It is true that he was not given seniority since 26.8.1974. Even so the question is whether the gap of three months 20 days is such a long gap as not to merit condonation or for that matter to be termed as a break in service for purposes of para 2 (a) of the scheme. 10. In Jeevan Lai Limited v. Its Workmen, [1962] 1 S.C.R. 717, the expression "continuous service" fell for consideration of this court. The employee joined the appellant's service as a workman in 1929 and resigned in 1957. During this period he remained absent from duty without permission or leave for nearly eight months between February, 1945 to October, 1945. Under an award made between the employer and the workmen, a scheme was framed wherein the concerned clause was that "on voluntary retirement or resignation of an employee after fifteen years continuous service, gratuity at the same rate as above" was payable. The question was whether the respondent-workman satisfied the requirement of 15 years' continuous service. Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for the Division Bench held in favour of the workmen on the following reasoning: "......there can be no doubt that in a different context the same words can and often have different meanings. As this Court has observed in Budge Budge Municipality v. P.R. Mukherjee, "the same words may mean one thing in one context and another in different context. This is the reason why decisions on the meaning of particular word or collection of words found in other statutes are scarcely of much value when we have to deal with a specific statute of our own; they may be helpful but cannot be taken as guides or precedents"....... "Continuous service" in the context of the scheme of gratuity framed by the tribunal in the earlier reference postulates the continuance of the relationship of master and servant between the employer and his employees. If the servant resigns his employment service automatically comes to an end. If an employer terminates the service of his employee that again brings the continuity of service to an end. If the servant resigns his employment service automatically comes to an end. If an employer terminates the service of his employee that again brings the continuity of service to an end. If the service of the employee is brought to an end by the operation of any law that again is another instance where the continuance is disrupted; but it is difficult to hold that merely because an employee is absent without obtaining leave that itself would bring to an end the continuity of his service." Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ahalya A. Samtaney Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 92. Relevant portion being para Nos. 18, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are reproduced as follows:- "18. There is really no dispute that the appellant falls in the "rest category". This is inter alia acknowledged in the letter of the Principal of the College dated 16.11.1993 noticing that but for the loss of workload in the degree college she would have been working in the senior college but had to be reappointed in the junior college. Once again in the letter dated 16.11.1993 addressed by the College to the University it is categorically stated that the appellant falls in the "rest category". The only ground on which the Government refuses to consider her in the "rest category", is the absence of continuous employment and for no other reason. Her termination and re-appointment is being used against her. Para 5 of the counter affidavit before us is quite clear on this aspect. The one day gap arising from the letter dated 29.9.1976 informing the appellant that she would be joining on 1.10.1976 in the junior college as she was declared surplus in the senior college from 29.9.1976 is, thus, sought to be put against her. The letter dated 16.11.1993 may usefully be referred to for this purpose, which reads as under: "I have to state that Mrs. A.A. Samtaney REST category teachers the Degree College was transferred to the Junior College for want of work-load as per the above orders she is to be absorbed as Lecturer in the Degree College, in the Vacancy be filled in now, the particulars are as below: (1) Mrs. A.A. Samtaney REST category teachers the Degree College was transferred to the Junior College for want of work-load as per the above orders she is to be absorbed as Lecturer in the Degree College, in the Vacancy be filled in now, the particulars are as below: (1) Mrs. A.A. Samtaney was working as Tutor in English from 16.12.1974 to 14.3.1975, she was again appointed as Tutor in English from 15.7.1975, but was promoted as Lecturer in English from 1.8.1975. She would have continued as Lecturer in English during the academic year 1975-76, but for the loss work-load in the Degree College, she was transferred to the Junior College, with effect from 1.10.1976. She is working in the Junior College till today." 22. We really do not have to labour much on this aspect as the High Court of Bombay itself had an occasion to examine the same in Writ Petition No. 2903/1989 titled Professor Pervez H. Lentin v. The Principal St. Xavier's College & Ors. decided on 17.2.2005. In a sense this is also an identical case of an artificial break arising from the change in the education pattern. We may usefully extract para 16 of the said judgment as under: "16. The petitioner was undoubtedly in continuous service. Indeed, what is termed as a break was at the highest an artificial break. From the correspondence referred to above, it appears to us clear that there in fact was not even an artificial break, for the re-appointments were from the very next date. However, even assuming that the same in the Petitioner's case amounted to an artificial break, the Petitioner is adequately safeguarded by the circulars/resolutions issued by the Government of Maharashtra. For instance, by a G.R. dated 7.6.1980 the Government recorded the fact that it had considered the representations made to it regarding such breaks; that it was observed that in most of the cases services of the teachers in junior colleges were terminated at the end of every academic year and they were appointed for the next academic year without benefit of continuous service and that it had further been represented to Government that such teachers should get the status of confirmed teachers if they had put in, in all, 24 months service even though it was not continuous due to the breaks given by the managements of the Non-Government Junior Colleges. It was observed that such practice had resulted in a sense of insecurity amongst the employees and deprived them of benefits of continuous service. It was therefore directed that a total of 24 months service in the same institution over-looking the break in service, should qualify junior college teachers to be treated as substantive subject to certain conditions. The petitioner admittedly complied with all such conditions. Thereafter, by a further resolution dated 26.2.1981 this resolution was extended mutatis mutandis. The same was so far as it related to the counting of break periods towards completion of probation period of 24 months in respect of teachers of Non-Government Junior Colleges to the teachers of Non-Government Senior Colleges in the State as well." 23. We are in complete agreement with the approach adopted by the High Court in the aforesaid judgment of deprecating such artificial breaks to deny the benefit to an employee, more so a teacher. We cannot lose sight of the fact that security of tenure for a teacher, who dedicates her life for education of the students, is of utmost importance. Insecurity should not be created in the employment of such lecturers or teachers, more so when they are through a process of really a subterfuge of giving artificial breaks. Another plus point is that this artificial break is also the result of a change in the educational curriculum. It is really a matter of internal adjustment arising from the change in curriculum and the appellant has been in continuous service for two decades, but for this one day break. This is how it has been really understood by the college and by the State Government, as they have given pension to her which is admissible after 20 years of service. 24. We are also of the view that this issue has been receiving attention and has been agitated before different authorities and the alleged delay in filing the writ petition cannot stand in the way of the appellant getting the benefit for services. The relevant pay-scale will entitle her to the emoluments which were admissible to her for work already performed. 25. We, thus, unhesitatingly conclude that the appellant is entitled to be treated in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 and is entitled to all the benefits of the Resolution dated 27.11.1991." 4. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Dy. The relevant pay-scale will entitle her to the emoluments which were admissible to her for work already performed. 25. We, thus, unhesitatingly conclude that the appellant is entitled to be treated in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 and is entitled to all the benefits of the Resolution dated 27.11.1991." 4. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Dy. G.C. submits that the Legislative intention of Rule 27 of the Pension Rules, 1986 is limited for the purpose of pension and thus, the other benefits of the past service particularly the career advancement Scheme could not have been granted by the respondents. 5. This Court after hearing Counsel for the parties is of the opinion that the continuous service as defined in precedent law cited by the Counsel for the petitioner past service particularly when the same has been rendered strictly in accordance with the law has to be counted. In this case we take note of the fact that petitioner underwent the selection process strictly in accordance with the law and was temporarily appointed on 30.8.1976 at S.D. Govt. College, Beawar. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the past service has been regularized and the break has been condoned while invoking Rule 27 of the Pension Rules 1986 by the respondents themselves and thus, the benefit of past service is not denied by the respondents though it is accepted only for the purpose of pension. This Court is also satisfied that on account of the fact that once the respondents has applied their mind and was found break in service to be condoned, then the other benefits, selection scale have to be computed while taking into consideration the initial date of appointment. Once the appointment in question though may be temporary at SD Govt. College, Beawar is not questioned by the respondents for the purpose of pension, then the denial of career advancement Scheme shall infringe right which is already accrued to the petitioner for pension purpose and thus in light of the facts given above, the petitioner is entitled for grant of selection by counting his length of service since 30.8.1976. College, Beawar is not questioned by the respondents for the purpose of pension, then the denial of career advancement Scheme shall infringe right which is already accrued to the petitioner for pension purpose and thus in light of the facts given above, the petitioner is entitled for grant of selection by counting his length of service since 30.8.1976. The small period of break in service shall not be treated as break and shall be treated as continued in the light of the order passed by the respondents on 25.06.2008 in which the past service has been included for the purpose of computing pension invoking 27 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1986. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed with a direction to grant the selection scale to the petitioner by counting his length of service as on 30.08.1976 with consequential benefits. The other benefits including the senior selection shall be considered from the same date. The necessary compliance shall be made within a period of six months from today.