ORDER : All these writ petitions having been filed by similarly situated people and involving identical questions of law are being heard and decided together. 2. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3629/2018; Jai Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are taken as a lead case. 3. Brief details of the essential dates qua all the petitioners is reproduced hereunder : Sr. No. Writ No. Date of Joining Date of Regularization of service Date of Retirement Petition filed on 1. CWP 3629/18 Jai Prakash 09.07.1986 22.08.1994 31.07.2027 In service 12.03.2018 2. CWP 79/2018 Indra Ram Acharya 15.09.1981 21.10.1991 31.07.2014 Retired 21.12.2017 3. CWP 120/2018 Govind Singh 15.09.1981 21.10.1991 31.03.2019 Retired 02.01.2018 4. CWP 584/2018 Sukhdev Bhargav 02.02.1982 21.10.1991 31.10.2015 Retired 10.01.2018 5. CWP 715/2018 Shankar Singh 04.07.1986 21.10.1991 28.02.2017 Retired 03.01.2018 6. CWP 774/2018 Magharam 02.02.1982 21.10.1991 31.07.2010 Retired 18.12.2017 7. CWP 3606/18 Jaisa Ram 24.05.1985 28.08.1992 31.07.2023 In service 12.03.2018 8. CWP 3630/18 Poonam Singh 06.03.1980 21.10.1991 30.06.2020 Retired 12.03.2018 9. CWP 3631/18 Shivijiram 14.04.1980 21.10.1991 31.07.2021 Retired 12.03.2018 10. CWP 3768/18 Tej Singh 01.07.1986 21.10.1991 31.01.2018 Retired 12.03.2018 11. CWP 4781/18 Mangla Ram 15.09.1981 21.10.1991 30.06.2023 In service 17.03.2018 12. CWP 5108/18 Mangilal-I 02.02.1982 31.10.1991 31.08.2023 In service 17.03.2018 13. CWP 5411/18 Surtaram 15.09.1991 21.10.1991 30.04.2019 Retired 30.03.2018 14. CWP 6253/18 Damaram 24.05.1985 15.12.1993 31.12.2027 In service 24.04.2018 15. CWP 6309/18 Umedaram 24.05.1985 15.05.1993 31.10.2014 Retired 26.04.2018 16. CWP 6316/18 Ghamandaram 07.07.1986 13.08.1994 31.08.2023 In service 26.04.2018 17. CWP 9064/18 Noratan Ram 04.02.1982 31.10.1991 31.12.2017 Retired 29.06.2018 18. CWP 9066/18 Madanraj Acharya 15.09.1981 31.10.1991 30.06.2015 Retired 29.06.2018 19. CWP 1770/19 Moola Ram 04.09.1986 10.08.1994 28.02.2026 In service 07.01.2019 20. CWP 1876/19 Ladhu Ram 01.07.1985 21.05.1993 31.12.2024 In service 11.01.2019 21. CWP 1906/19 Rameshwarlal 01.07.1985 25.05.1993 31.08.2026 In service 07.01.2019 22. CWP 1908/19 Hanumana Ram 01.07.1985 25.10.1991 30.09.2019 Retired 07.01.2019 23. CWP 1909/19 Thakraram 05.07.1985 22.12.1993 30.11.2023 In service 07.01.2019 24. CWP 1984/19 Sona Ram 17.09.1986 15.08.1994 30.06.2024 In service 15.01.2019 25. CWP 4676/19 Mangilal-II 01.07.1985 09.09.1992 30.09.2023 In service 14.03.2019 26. CWP 2760/19 Bhoora Ram 11.10.1985 10.12.1993 30.06.2020 Retired 19.08.2019 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed with the Department as Class-IV employee through a regular selection process on daily wage basis. Later on, a decision was taken by the Government to regularize the services of such daily wager Class-IV servants. CWP 2760/19 Bhoora Ram 11.10.1985 10.12.1993 30.06.2020 Retired 19.08.2019 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed with the Department as Class-IV employee through a regular selection process on daily wage basis. Later on, a decision was taken by the Government to regularize the services of such daily wager Class-IV servants. In that regard order dated 30.09.1985 was passed wherein criteria for regularization of services was fixed. In pursuance to the said order and in pursuance to certain orders passed by the High Court in certain writ petitions filed by the employees the services of the Class-IV employees were regularized by the Department. In the present matters, the said date of regularization qua all the petitioners fall somewhere between the year 1991-1994. 14 out of the present petitioners have since retired and 12 are still in service. 5. The case of the petitioners in the present petitions is that their services have not been regularized w.e.f the date of initial appointment which ought to have been done as the petitioners are the persons similarly situated to one Meera Devi to whom the said benefits had been granted. It has been submitted that Meera Devi was an employee who was appointed on the same date on which one of the petitioners, namely, Jai Prakash was appointed and was also regularized on the same date i.e. 22.08.1994 on which Jai Prakash was regularized. Meera Devi raised a dispute before the Labour Court with a prayer for regularization of her service from the date of her initial appointment. The claim of Meera Devi was allowed by the Labour court and the writ petition preferred against the same being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4320/2012 was also dismissed. It has been submitted that in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, the services of Meera Devi have been regularized from the date of her initial appointment and therefore, the petitioners being similarly situated persons have a right to claim parity and should be granted the same benefits as granted to Meera Devi. It has been submitted that in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, the services of Meera Devi have been regularized from the date of her initial appointment and therefore, the petitioners being similarly situated persons have a right to claim parity and should be granted the same benefits as granted to Meera Devi. Alternatively, it has been submitted that initial date of appointment should be considered at least for the purposes of calculation of gratuity and pension benefits as the qualifying service as defined under Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules of 1996’) and Section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 1972’) has been completed by the petitioners. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the order passed in Meera Devi’s case has become final for all purposes and has been implemented and executed by the Department, the same is definitely applicable to the present petitioners too and they also deserve to be granted the same benefits. It has further been submitted that although the present petitioners have raised their claims belatedly, but the said delay cannot come in the way of granting relief to the petitioners as it has been held in the catena of judgments that if a relief has been granted to a similarly situated person, the same cannot be denied to the other incumbents on the ground of delay. 7. So far as the issue whether the petitioners have completed the qualifying service for the purpose of calculation of pension and gratuity is concerned, the counsel has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2018 AIR SC 1545) decided on 23.03.2018. 8. Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the following judgments: 1. State of Haryana vs. Mohinder Singh; (2017) 4 SCC 587 2. Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and Anr. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.; (2008) 9 SCC 24 3. Sheo Narain Nagar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2018) AIR (SC) 233 4. Neelima Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; AIR 2021 SC 3884 5. Meera Devi vs. State of Raj.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5288/2014 decided on 26.08.2015 6. Salim Khan vs. State of Raj.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14362/2016 decided on 16.01.2018 7. Sheo Narain Nagar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2018) AIR (SC) 233 4. Neelima Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; AIR 2021 SC 3884 5. Meera Devi vs. State of Raj.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5288/2014 decided on 26.08.2015 6. Salim Khan vs. State of Raj.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14362/2016 decided on 16.01.2018 7. Govind Dan Charan vs. State; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1068/2014 decided on 17.12.2015 8. Jai Narain Vyas Uni. vs. Mukesh; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.347/2019 decided on 13.08.2021 9. Prakash Chandra vs. State; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.116/2017 decided on 03.01.2018 10. Shree Gopal Gaur vs. State; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11839/2016 decided on 13.04.2018 11. Keshrimal Soni vs. State of Raj.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4743/2004 decided on 22.08.2012 9. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed only on the ground of delay. It has been submitted by the respondents that the services of the petitioners were regularized somewhere between the year 1991-1994 to which the petitioners never raised any objection and many of them have even retired. The fact itself is sufficient to prove that the petitioners were never aggrieved of the date of regularization and therefore, they cannot be permitted to challenge the same after a period of more than 25 years. Counsel further submitted that it is true that Meera Devi was granted the said relief but it was in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court. Meera Devi had raised her grievance soon after the regularization of her services and therefore the petitioners who had never challenged their orders of regularization at the relevant point of time cannot challenge the same now. So far as the calculation of the pension and gratuity benefits from the date of initial appointment is concerned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the same also being the consequential relief cannot be granted. 10. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments: 1. New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh and Ors.; (2007) 9 SCC 278 2. Union of India and Ors. vs. M.K. Sarkar; (2010) 2 SCC 59 3. Santosh Kumar and Ors. vs. G.R. Chawla and Ors.; (2003) 10 SCC 513 4. State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Surendra Mohnot and Ors.; (2014) 14 SCC 77 5. State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi; (2009) 12 SCC 49 11. Union of India and Ors. vs. M.K. Sarkar; (2010) 2 SCC 59 3. Santosh Kumar and Ors. vs. G.R. Chawla and Ors.; (2003) 10 SCC 513 4. State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Surendra Mohnot and Ors.; (2014) 14 SCC 77 5. State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi; (2009) 12 SCC 49 11. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. A bare perusal of the grounds raised in the petitions makes it clear that the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the sole ground that as Meera Devi, similarly situated person, has been granted regularization w.e.f the date of her initial appointment the same may be granted to them also. It is clear on record that services of the petitioners were regularized way back between years 1991-94, and no such grievance was ever raised by the petitioners even till the date of their retirement (in case where the petitioner had retired). Only when orders for pension in the case of Meera Devi, calculating the same on the basis of initial date of appointment were issued, the present petitioners too decided to raise their claim for first time in the year 2017 vide a notice which was served on the respondent-authorities. 13. In the case of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh & Ors.; (2007) 9 SCC 278 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a person, who did not choose to challenge a specific order at the relevant point of time and challenged the same only after the relief was granted to a similarly situated employee, cannot be granted the same benefit. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Respondents herein filed a Writ Petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the Writ Petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the Writ Petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy And Others [ (2004) 1 SCC 347 ], Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh And Anr. [ 2006 (12) SCALE 347 ] and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director and Another v. K. Thangappan and Another [(2006) 4 SCC 322].” 14. So far as the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services w.e.f the date of initial appointment is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same because of a gross delay of 25 years being caused in raising the said claim. 15. So far as the other judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners in support of the submissions regarding the regularization of the petitioners are concerned, there is no dispute pertaining to the ratio as laid down in the said judgments. But as this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matters qua the relief of regularization on the ground of gross delay, the said judgments are not required to be dealt with in the present matter. 16. So far as the case of petitioners who have since retired and pray for calculation of the pensionary and gratuity benefits from the date of initial appointment are concerned, the ground raised by the counsel for the petitioners is found to be tenable. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 defines qualifying services as under: “12. Commencement of qualifying service (a) Except for compensation gratuity, a Government servant’s service does not qualify till he has completed eighteen years of age. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 defines qualifying services as under: “12. Commencement of qualifying service (a) Except for compensation gratuity, a Government servant’s service does not qualify till he has completed eighteen years of age. (b) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes over charge of the post to which he is first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity.” Section 2(c) of the Act of 1972 defines ‘continuous service’ as under: “2(c) “continuous service” means continuous service as defined in section 2A;” Section 2A(1) of the Act of 1972 reads as under: “2A. Continuous service.—For the purposes of this Act— (1) an employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he has, for that period, been in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave (not being absence in respect of which an order treating the absence as break in service has been passed in accordance with the standing orders, rules or regulations governing the employees of the establishment), lay-off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the commencement of this Act;” 17. In view of the above provisions, it is clear that the remaining 14 petitioners who have since retired, having completed their qualifying services, were entitled for calculation of pensionary and gratuity benefits w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. 18. In the case of Shree Gopal Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11839/2016, while relying upon the judgment passed in Keshrimal Soni Vs. State & Ors.; S.B.C.W.P. No.4743/2004, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held as under: “I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. Provisions of Rule 12(b) of the Rules of 1996 read as under:- “Rule 12. Commencement of qualifying service (a) Except for compensation gratuity, a Government servant’s service does not qualify till he has completed eighteen years of age. Provisions of Rule 12(b) of the Rules of 1996 read as under:- “Rule 12. Commencement of qualifying service (a) Except for compensation gratuity, a Government servant’s service does not qualify till he has completed eighteen years of age. (b) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes over charge of the post to which he is first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity.” A bare perusal of Clause (b) of Rule 12 indicates that qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge on the post, for which, he is first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. The term temporary post has been defined in Rule 7(35) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (‘Rules of 1951’), which reads as under:-" “Temporary post – means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time.” The order of appointment of the petitioner dated 09.05.1985 reads as under:- ^^dk;kZy; vkns'k fu;kstu dk;kZy; ds lwph esa ls fuEufyf[kr vk’kkfFkZ;ksa dh Áfrfnu vf/kdre 234@& Áfrekg dk;Zxzg.k djus dh frfFk ls muds uke ds lEeq[k vafdr fo|ky; esa fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gS ;s fu;qfDr;k iw.kZr;k vLFkk;h gSA fcuk uksfVl budh lsok;s lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA nSfud HkRrs ij dh xbZ lsok;s fu;fer jkT; deZpkjh in ÁkIr djus dk vk/kkj ugha ekuk tk;sxkA bUgsa inLFkkiu LFkku ij fnukad 16-5-1985 rd dk;Zxzg.k djuk gksxkA vU;Fkk fu;qfDr vkns’k Lor gh fujLr le>s tk;sxsA laLFkk Á/kku buds dk;Z ,oa O;ogkj ls lacaf/kr fVIi.kh Áfr ekg dh mifLFkfr ds lkFk lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh dks Ásf"kr djsaxsA** A perusal of the terms above would clearly indicate that the petitioner was granted appointment on temporary post and once the appointment has been made on temporary post, in terms of Rule 12(b) of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is entitled to get the said period counted towards his qualifying service.” 19. In view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Keshrimal Soni and Shree Gopal Gaur (supra), and the observations made herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners who have retired are entitled for calculation of their pension and gratuity benefits from the date of initial appointment in service. 20. In view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Keshrimal Soni and Shree Gopal Gaur (supra), and the observations made herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners who have retired are entitled for calculation of their pension and gratuity benefits from the date of initial appointment in service. 20. In view of the same, so far as the following 14 petitioners who have since retired, their writ petitions are partly allowed. The respondents are directed to take into consideration the initial date of appointment of the 14 retired petitioners for the purpose of calculating their qualifying service and grant them consequential benefits qua pension and gratuity in accordance with law: 1. Civil Writ Petition No.79/2018; Indra Ram Acharya Vs. State & Ors. 2. Civil Writ Petition No.120/2018; Govind Singh Vs. State & Ors. 3. Civil Writ Petition No.584/2018 Sukhdev Bhargav Vs. State & Ors. 4. Civil Writ Petition No.715/2018 Shankar Singh Vs. State & Ors. 5. Civil Writ Petition No.774/2018 Magharam Vs. State & Ors. 6. Civil Writ Petition No.3630/2018 Poonam Singh Vs. State & Ors. 7. Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2018 Shivijiram Vs. State & Ors. 8. Civil Writ Petition No.3768/2018 Tej Singh Vs. State & Ors. 9. Civil Writ Petition No.5411/2018 Surtaram Vs. State & Ors. 10. Civil Writ Petition No.6309/2018 Umedaram Vs. State & Ors. 11. Civil Writ Petition No.9064/2018 Noratan Ram Vs. State & Ors. 12. Civil Writ Petition No.9066/2018 Madanraj Acharya Vs. State & Ors. 13. Civil Writ Petition No.1908/2019 Hanumana Ram Vs. State & Ors. 14. Civil Writ Petition No.12760/2019 Bhoora Ram Vs. State & Ors. 21. Needful be done by the respondent-authorities within a period of three months of receipt of copy of this order. 22. So far as the following 12 petitioners who are already in service are concerned, their writ petitions are dismissed : 1. Civil Writ Petition No.3629/2018 Jai Prakash Vs. State & Ors. 2. Civil Writ Petition No.3606/2018 Jaisa Ram Vs. State & Ors. 3. Civil Writ Petition No.4781/2018 Mangla Ram Vs. State & Ors. 4. Civil Writ Petition No.5108/2018 Mangilal-I Vs. State & Ors. 5. Civil Writ Petition No.6253/2018 Damaram Vs. State & Ors. 6. Civil Writ Petition No.6316/2018 Ghamandaram Vs.State & Ors. 7. Civil Writ Petition No.1770/2019 Moola Ram Vs. State & Ors. 8. Civil Writ Petition No.1876/2019 Ladhu Ram Vs. State & Ors. 9. Civil Writ Petition No.1906/2019 Rameshwarlal Vs. 4. Civil Writ Petition No.5108/2018 Mangilal-I Vs. State & Ors. 5. Civil Writ Petition No.6253/2018 Damaram Vs. State & Ors. 6. Civil Writ Petition No.6316/2018 Ghamandaram Vs.State & Ors. 7. Civil Writ Petition No.1770/2019 Moola Ram Vs. State & Ors. 8. Civil Writ Petition No.1876/2019 Ladhu Ram Vs. State & Ors. 9. Civil Writ Petition No.1906/2019 Rameshwarlal Vs. State & Ors. 10. Civil Writ Petition No.1909/2019 Thakraram Vs. State & Ors. 11. Civil Writ Petition No.1984/2019 Sona Ram Vs. State & Ors. 12. Civil Writ Petition No.4676/2019 Mangilal-II Vs. State & Ors. 23. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.