JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since common question of fact and law is involved in the present batch of writ petitions, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. For brevity, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7056/2019 “Manju Bala Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.” are taking into consideration. 4. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present controversy are that While the petitioner was working on the post of Teacher Grade-II, he was promoted to the post of Teacher Grade-I (Lecturer) on Patey Vetan. After joining, the petitioner discharged the duties and functions of Lecturer on Patey Vetan. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and she was promoted on the post of Teacher Grade-I (Lecturer) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioners discharged the duties and responsibilities of the higher post equivalent to the person who is holding the higher post though regularly appointed on that promoted post, they are entitled to get the remuneration and perks for working on such post. He submits that since the persons appointed on regular basis and the persons appointed on Patey Vetan basis discharged the functions of the higher post, the petitioners cannot be discriminated by paying the salary of a lower post, though they are discharging the duties and functions of the promoted post. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.821/2019 “State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxmi Narayan Soni” and other connected matters decided on 31.07.2019 and judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6547/2011 “Vijay Kumar Damor & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” decided on 19.09.2012. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions may be allowed and the petitioners may be granted all service benefits including the pay etc. of the post which was held by them on Patey Vetan. 7. Per contra, the learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and asserts that the present writ petition has been filed after a significant & unexplained delay of 10 years. Learned State Counsel further submits that the petitioners were holding the higher post on Patey Vetan 10 years back, for which, the grievance is being raised now by way of filing these writ petitions. Learned State Counsel further submits that the petitioners were holding the higher post on Patey Vetan 10 years back, for which, the grievance is being raised now by way of filing these writ petitions. He submits that the petitioners were regularly promoted after their cases were considered by the respective DPCs held by the respondent-Department from time to time. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners discharged the duties of higher post on urgent temporary basis on account of the fact that regular DPC could not be held for promotion. 8. Learned State Counsel further submits that as per Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, the State is having a discretionary power to make appointments of the employees, where vacancies cannot be filled up by direct recruitment or promotion on officiating capacity on a purely temporary basis provided such individuals are eligible for appointment to the promotional post. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioners accepted the duties and responsibilities applicable to the higher post, they are not entitled for the service benefits of that post. He further submits that since it was only a temporary arrangement on account of the fact that regular DPC could not be held for promotion, the petitioners are not entitled for any benefits acrruing therefrom of the higher post. 9. Learned State Counsel relies upon the judgments of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1602/2019 “Kishna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6113/2022 “Shravan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 11. The precise question in the present case is whether a person who is temporarily promoted to a higher post by the State Government, while officiating or working, is entitled to receive emoluments and other service benefits for discharging the duties of that higher post or not? 12. The petitioners were substantively appointed employees of the State Government on the posts of Teacher Grade-II, Teacher Grade-I, Headmaster & Principal and under the scheme of Patey Vetan, they were asked to officiate on the higher post. 12. The petitioners were substantively appointed employees of the State Government on the posts of Teacher Grade-II, Teacher Grade-I, Headmaster & Principal and under the scheme of Patey Vetan, they were asked to officiate on the higher post. While they were discharging the functions of the higher post, they were granted the salary/remuneration of the post on which they were working prior to holding of the promoted post. 13. The undisputed facts in the present case are that all these petitioners were substantively appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-I/Headmasters and they were directed to perform the duties of promoted post on Patey Vetan, therefore, this Court is not dwelling into the facts as to whether the petitioners have performed such duties or not. Since the same is not disputed before this Court, therefore, it is obvious that all these petitioners have performed the duties of higher post/promoted post on Patey Vetan. 14. It is submitted that the posting of the petitioners on a higher post was made as an administrative arrangement on temporary basis on Patey Vetan. The term “Patey Vetan” as explained by learned State Counsel is the pay-scale in which the petitioners were already serving before the promoted post. The fact mentioned in the reply that the petitioners are working as Lecturer/promoted post is sufficient to establish that adequate number of vacancies were available with the respondents and the respondents utilized the services of the petitioners thereon without making promotions in accordance with the Rules. When the respondents utilized the services of the petitioners on higher posts, that too for a considerably long period, then there is no just reason available to deny the pay and perks pertaining to the higher post held by such persons. The posting of the petitioners on higher post, as a matter of fact, is nothing but a promotion looking to the administrative exigency, though the same is termed as “administration arrangement in Patey Vetan”. Once the services of the petitioners are utilized on higher post, they become entitled for grant of the pay in the pay-scales attached with that post. They were discharging the same duties as discharged by other persons employed on the same post by way of direct recruitment or by way of regular promotion. As such the respondents are required to maintain a parity for grant of pay etc. to the persons discharging similar duties. They were discharging the same duties as discharged by other persons employed on the same post by way of direct recruitment or by way of regular promotion. As such the respondents are required to maintain a parity for grant of pay etc. to the persons discharging similar duties. The case of the petitioners is not of intermittent officiation on higher post while discharging their normal duties but of discharging duties of higher posts for all purposes excluding the duties relating to the substantive post held by them. The non-grant of pay-scale and other service benefits applicable to the higher promoted post to the petitioners despite utilizing their services on the post is not permissible in view of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” enshrined under Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in the humble opinion of this Court, the petitioners are entitled for all the service benefits including the pay of the promoted post held by them on Patey Vetan. 15. It is also worthwhile noticing that in an identical controversy before this Court, the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxmi Narayan Soni decided on 31.07.2019 has held as under:- “12. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the learned Single Judge's directions given that all the petitioners were eligible at the time when they were given temporary appointment; they did not fulfill the description or fall within the exception of Rule 28 (2) and most importantly all of them were eligible and could have been promoted with effect from the date they were made to officiate temporarily as Principals. But for the fact that no DPC was held, all of them were subsequently selected through regularly constituted DPC. In these circumstances the denial of salary and all benefits to them from the date of their initial temporary appointment (having regard to their subsequent selection and appointment on regular basis against the vacancies for the earlier period), could not but be held to be arbitrary.” 16. In these circumstances the denial of salary and all benefits to them from the date of their initial temporary appointment (having regard to their subsequent selection and appointment on regular basis against the vacancies for the earlier period), could not but be held to be arbitrary.” 16. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petitions have been filed after long and unexplained delay is noted to be rejected on the ground that in similar set of facts, when other similarly situated persons, namely, Champalal, Laxmi Narayan & Gopal Das Soni etc. had approached this Court and this Court had ruled in their favour and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2019, then, as a model employer the respondents were under an obligation to extend the same benefit to those persons who have not even approached the Court but are similarly situated to Champalal, Laxmi Narayan & Gopal Das Soni etc. Otherwise also, it will be a case of hostile discrimination between two similarly situated persons if the benefits are denied to the present petitioners in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The delay cannot defeat justice. Since it is a recurring cause of action, therefore, on the ground of delay, the writ petition cannot be dismissed. 17. The simple principle which can be applied is that if a person has performed the duties and responsibilities of a higher post, then he is entitled to the remuneration and benefits of the service which is rendered by him and since in the present case, the petitioners have performed the duties and responsibilities of a higher post, therefore, they are entitled to get the benefits of the post on which they have actually performed their duties. 18. The other two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in Kishna Ram (supra) & Sharvan Kumar (supra) are distinguishable on the ground that the petitioners in those cases had not pressed the point for grant of salary etc. while working on promoted post on Patey Vetan, therefore, no finding was recorded in those cases. 19. 18. The other two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in Kishna Ram (supra) & Sharvan Kumar (supra) are distinguishable on the ground that the petitioners in those cases had not pressed the point for grant of salary etc. while working on promoted post on Patey Vetan, therefore, no finding was recorded in those cases. 19. In view of the discussions made above, the question framed is answered in affirmative and it is held that all these petitioners who held the promoted post on Patey Vetan basis before their regular promotions by DPC are required to be granted all the service benefits including pay etc. of the post which was held by them on officiating promotion on the basis of Patey Vetan. It is made clear that the benefit of pay etc. will be granted to those persons only on the basis of their actual performance of work/duties on the promoted post. 20. Needless to say, if they were demoted, then they would not be entitled for remuneration for the period for which they have not performed the actual duties on the promoted post. 21. The writ petitions as also the stay petitions stand disposed of.