JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions involving interdependent issues are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner vide order dated 08.03.1983, came to be appointed on the post of Technical Assistant (Agriculture), pursuant to advertisement No.05/1982 dated 29.05.1982, in the MLS University, Udaipur. In the order of appointment, it was stipulated that appointment has been made on ad-hoc basis till March, 1983, which is to be extended from month to month. The petitioner pursuant to the appointment order 08.03.1983, started working in MLS University. The entire agricultural faculty of MLS University was merged with the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner which was created in the year 1987. Subsequently in the year 2000, by way of an enactment, the Rajasthan Agriculture University was divided and Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'MPUAT') came to be established. After creation of MPUAT, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the said university. Later on in the year 2013, Agriculture University, Kota was established by promulgation of Act No.22 of 2013. The services of the petitioner were thereupon transferred to Agriculture University, Kota. The petitioner after discharging more than 32 years of uninterrupted services with the respondents stood superannuated on 31.08.2015. 3. The petitioner in Sampat Singh Rathore v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology & Ors. (S.B. C.W. No.6438/2018), has prayed for following reliefs:- "a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed. b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not sanctioning/releasing due amount of retiral benefits like commutation, gratuity and final pension of the petitioner in spite of lapse of almost three years of his retirement may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly, they may kindly be directed to sanction and release due amount of retiral benefits including final pension of the petitioner forthwith. c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may further kindly be directed to release due amount of arrears of pension after revision from time to time and other consequential benefits to the petitioner as per law forthwith. c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may further kindly be directed to release due amount of arrears of pension after revision from time to time and other consequential benefits to the petitioner as per law forthwith. d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may further kindly be directed to make payment of interest @9% per annum on the delayed payment of due retiral benefits including arrears of final pension to the petitioner forthwith. e) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. f) Cost of writ petition may also please be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 4. In Sampat Singh Rathore v. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology & Ors. (S.B. C.W. 6591/2018) following reliefs have been prayed for:- "a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed. b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned inaction on the part of the respondent authorities more particularly the respondent No. 1-University in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 15.03.1983 (Annex. 13) may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly, the same may kindly be discarded. c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 1-University may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services and accordingly, regularize him in service w.e.f. the date of his initial entry in service i.e. 15.03.1983 as has been done in the cases of similarly situated other employees forthwith d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may further kindly be directed to grant all other consequential benefits along with interest @9% per annum on the delayed payment of the same to the petitioner forthwith e) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. f)Cost of writ petition may also please be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has served respondents continuously for more than 32 years. f)Cost of writ petition may also please be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has served respondents continuously for more than 32 years. The petitioner during service was allowed pay fixation, increments, selection scales and all other ancillary service benefits. The name of the petitioner was also included in the seniority list pertaining to Technical Assistant (Agriculture) issued by the respondents from time to time. Attention of the Court was drawn towards communication dated 14.08.2017, whereby MPUAT University informed Agriculture University, Kota that though employees similarly situated were given regular appointment pursuant to selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 29.05.1982, the petitioner who was appointed on ad-hoc basis has continued to serve in the said capacity throughout, therefore, pensionary benefits available to the regular employees are not applicable. 6. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Maharana Pratap University & Anr. (S.B. C.W. No.3908/2014) wherein benefit of relief of regularisation of services was extended in favour of the similarly situated employee. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis for a limited period however, services were extended in administrative exigency. It was further submitted that since services of the petitioner were not regularized on the post of Technical Assistant (Agriculture), the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits cannot be extended. It was further submitted that all monetory benefits which are available to ad-hoc/temporary employees of the respondent-University had already been extended to the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. 8. Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maharana Pratap, University & Anr. v. Jagdish Prasad (D.B S.A.W. No.588/2022), while affirming the order passed by a Coordiante Bench in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Maharana Pratap University & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3908/2014), held as under:- "It is admitted position that the respondent retired from the services of the appellant-University in the year 2017. The learned Single Judge has made observations in the impugned order that the similarly situated other two employees have been regularized and the case of the respondent stands at par with them. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3908/2014), held as under:- "It is admitted position that the respondent retired from the services of the appellant-University in the year 2017. The learned Single Judge has made observations in the impugned order that the similarly situated other two employees have been regularized and the case of the respondent stands at par with them. There is also a reference to the reported judgment wherein, in identical facts situation, the Court has taken a view that the petitioner therein may be entitled to regularization of services. On independent scrutiny of the grounds taken in the appeal memo, as also the annexures thereto, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the material and documents which were placed on record by the parties. It is not in dispute that even prior to 1998, the respondent was given work on the establishment of the University and thereafter he was placed in a particular pay scale. It would be travesty of justice in case persons like the respondent is informed after retirement and despite unblemished service record that he is not entitled for regularization of service. The record produced by the appellant-University before the learned Single Judge itself indicates that the original petitioner has rendered his services in a particular pay scale satisfactorily and with unblemished record. It is not necessary for us to go into the details. Suffice it to say that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, which were in the peculiar facts of the case, are not perverse and need no interference by this Court in the special appeal." 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187) dealing with the question whether pensionary benefits to an ad-hoc employee who retired after rendering more than 30 years of service would be admissible or not, was pleased to hold as under:- "It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondents as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand." 11. Undisputably, the petitioner served respondents for more than 32 years without any break in service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 08.03.1983. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Technical Assistant (Agriculture) pursuant to advertisement dated 29.05.1982 was accorded in the pay-scale of Rs.550-1010/- by the MLS University, Udaipur. It is noticed that pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.05.1982, 25 candidates were selected on the post of Technical Assistant (Agriculture). Out of 25 candidates selected, services of all candidates except the petitioner had been regularised by the respondents. The petitioner from the date of initial appointment served respondents in the regular pay-scale and all service benefits which are otherwise available to a regular employee such as increments, selection scales, pay revisions along with seniority have been extended. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court the fact that appointment was offered to the petitioner, on the basis of merit- list prepared by a selection committee, after considering applications of all eligible candidates in response to the advertisement dated 04.03.1983 in regular pay-scale is sufficient to draw a conclusion that appointment against available vacant posts was regular and substantive. The denial of regularization of the services and consequential relief of pension and other ancillary benefits to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the writ petitions stand allowed. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Technical Assistant (Agriculture) with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e. 08.03.1983 along with all consequential benefits. 14. No order as to costs.