ORDER : 1. These two appeals arise out of order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge deciding a writ petition filed by writ petitioner-Dr. Gopal Sharan Gupta in the matter of his claim for regularization. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge allowed the claim of regularization but the benefit of regularization was given w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and in respect of the intervening period, only notional benefits were granted with a direction that actual benefits shall be payable to the petitioner from the date of passing of the order of regularization. 2. The writ petitioner has filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1041/2014 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent it limits actual benefits only prospectively from the date of passing of the order of regularization with the claim that the petitioner ought to be awarded actual benefits from an earlier date. 3. University of Rajasthan has preferred an appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge registered as D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 715/2015 as it is aggrieved by the directions of the learned Single Judge directing regularization of the writ petitioner. 4. Quintessential facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the second round of litigation between the parties is that the writ petitioner was initially appointed on 26.04.1991 as Research Assistant after a regular process of selection in an open advertisement with a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,200/- with certain conditions. His services were, later on, terminated which led to filing of writ petition, which was eventually allowed by learned Single Judge setting aside the order of termination. Though that order was challenged in appeal by the University, the principal reliefs granted to the writ petitioner were upheld and only modification made was to the effect that the writ petitioner shall not be entitled for any back-wages. Further, the Appellate Court observed that, for other purposes, so far as regularization or otherwise benefits are concerned for which the employee is entitled, the intervening period will be counted for the said purpose. 5. It appears that the order passed by the Court was not being complied with, which led to filing of contempt petition. Further, the Appellate Court observed that, for other purposes, so far as regularization or otherwise benefits are concerned for which the employee is entitled, the intervening period will be counted for the said purpose. 5. It appears that the order passed by the Court was not being complied with, which led to filing of contempt petition. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the parties settled the disputes and an order came to be passed on 24.11.2010 observing that the University has offered appointment to the writ petitioner at a consolidated salary of Rs. 9300/- per month, which has been accepted. However, the Court reserved the right to file appropriate proceedings to claim proper reliefs in accordance with law. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed writ petition claiming following reliefs: “(I) The respondents may be directed to give petitioner the benefit of higher pay scale, proper pay fixation and re-designation of Assistant Professor which has been given to persons working as Research Assistant/Research Associate and the order dated 20.12.2010 may be modified to the extent it denies aforesaid benefit to him. (II) The respondents may be directed to give petitioner the benefit of continuity of service, regularization etc. as per directions given by Hon’ble Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 733/2000 decided on 24.03.2009. (III) The order dated 20.12.2010 may be modified to the extent it denies aforesaid benefits to him. Other consequential benefits may also be given to him. (IV) Any prejudicial order, if passed during the pendency of the appeal, which may kindly be taken on record and after examining the same be quashed and set aside. (V) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 6. The relief sought was for grant of benefit of higher pay scale, proper pay fixation and re-designation as Assistant Professor claiming parity with Research Associate. The petitioner had also prayed for continuity of service, regularization relying upon order passed by the Division Bench in the appeal in earlier rounds of proceedings. A further prayer was made that the order dated 20.12.2010 by which the petitioner was given appointment in compliance of the direction of the Court be also modified to the extent it denies benefits claimed hereinabove. 7. A further prayer was made that the order dated 20.12.2010 by which the petitioner was given appointment in compliance of the direction of the Court be also modified to the extent it denies benefits claimed hereinabove. 7. The University of Rajasthan denied the claim mainly on the ground that the petitioner could not claim parity with the Research Associate. According to the University, the petitioner was though reinstated in service, he was not entitled to regularization because the writ petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant to work on consolidated salary and as averred by the University in their return, there were no sanctioned posts on which the writ petitioner could claim regularization. 8. Learned Single Judge, however, held that writ petitioner was held entitled to regularization, drawing parity with Research Associate. The benefits of regularization were, however, given prospectively. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the University of Rajasthan, assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, would submit that the direction for regularization could not have been issued because no parity could be claimed. Research Associate and Research Assistant are two different cadres. While Research Associate performed duties of Teacher that is not with the Research Assistant. The pay scales granted to them are also different. 10. According to learned counsel for the University, in the absence of there being any sanctioned posts, regularization could not be ordered. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner could not claim any legitimate expectation merely because he has worked for a long time as the terms and conditions on which he was initially appointed and later on also appointed vide order dated 20.12.2010, clearly states that the University shall not bear any financial burden on the claim of regular appointment and the petitioner fully knew that howsoever long it may be, he will continue under the order of appointment only on consolidated basis without any regularization. Lastly, it is submitted that the writ petitioner had remained out of employment until he was reinstated pursuant to the order of the Court in the year 2010. The period during which he remained out of employment could not be counted as during that period he actually worked in other institution. 11. In support of submissions, learned counsel for the University has placed reliance upon State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Daya Lal and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1193 and Dr. The period during which he remained out of employment could not be counted as during that period he actually worked in other institution. 11. In support of submissions, learned counsel for the University has placed reliance upon State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Daya Lal and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1193 and Dr. Chanchal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 1713 . 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner was illegally terminated in the year 1997, but that termination was set aside by the Court holding it to be illegal. He having been reinstated under judicial order, it has to be held that he continued in service throughout without any break and, therefore, while considering his claim for regularization, entire period right from the beginning of the initial date of appointment is required to be considered. He would submit that the Division Bench in earlier round of litigation clearly declared that for the purposes of considering claim of regularization and other claims, the intervening period shall also be taken into consideration. That order having attained finality, now the University could not be heard on the aforesaid aspect. He would further submit that the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Sharma and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1993 SC 81 has clearly held that the nature of work done by Assistant and Associate are almost identical and on that basis the Supreme Court held the Associates entitled to the same pay as that of Assistants. Therefore, in the matter of consideration of claim for absorption/regularization, learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that Research Assistants stands on parity with Research Associates. He would further submit that the University in compliance of the order of the Court regularized the services of the writ petitioner, therefore, only on the ground that posts are not available, relief could not be denied. 13. We heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. Learned Single Judge has directed consideration of petitioner’s case for regularization taking into consideration that the petitioner was initially appointed way-back in the year 1991. 13. We heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. Learned Single Judge has directed consideration of petitioner’s case for regularization taking into consideration that the petitioner was initially appointed way-back in the year 1991. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was selected through an open selection procedure and it is not a case of back-door entry and mere ad-hoc arrangement without following any process of selection. On this issue, it has to be, therefore, held that the petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant through a regular process of selection. At the same time, it has to be seen that appointment of the petitioner was on consolidated salary and not on pay scale. This apparently appears to be for the reason that at that time, there were no sanctioned posts of Research Assistant. Yet the services were required, therefore, the appointments were made. In the return of respondents, it has been clearly stated that vacant sanctioned posts are not available which fact was not traversed by the writ petitioner in his rejoinder. 15. One of the main grounds on which the learned Single Judge was inclined to grant relief to the writ petitioner was that the Research Assistants and Research Associates have to be treated at par. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Sharma and Others vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) while taking into consideration the claim of Research Associate seeking parity with pay given to Research Assistant had an occasion to examine the similarity of the two posts insofar as qualification, job requirements are concerned. It was held as under: “10.......The educational qualifications and method of recruitment of Research Associates is the same as for Research Assistants as is evident from Resolution No. 153. Their job-charts are identical. Like Research Assistants, Research Associates also conduct and guide research work. Their work is essentially in the fields but they also impart instructions in classes as is clear from Annexure CC to Harendra Singh Cheema's affidavit in Writ Petitions Nos. 16301-16376 of 1984. Their other conditions of service are also almost identical to those of Research Assistants. The difference is in two respects: (i) Research Assistants were on a pay scale of Rs. 300-600 whereas Research Associates were placed on a consolidated pay of Rs. 16301-16376 of 1984. Their other conditions of service are also almost identical to those of Research Assistants. The difference is in two respects: (i) Research Assistants were on a pay scale of Rs. 300-600 whereas Research Associates were placed on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1100/- per month and (ii) while Research Assistants were in a regular cadre the same cannot be said about Research Associates whose appointments were ad hoc and on a project/scheme. Except for these two broad distinctions we find on job evaluation that the work done by Research Associates is more or less identical to the work done by Research Assistants. On the principle of equal pay for equal work, counsel for the Research Associates rightly contends, that the University cannot be permitted to exploit the market condition of large scale unemployment of educated youth and availability of surplus qualified persons by offering them a paltry consolidated pay of Rs. 1100/- per month.....” 16. The aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court support the case of the writ petitioner that there is lot of similarity in terms of the qualifications and nature of duty performed by the Research Assistant and Research Associate. Though the number of other judgments have also been cited, in view of the aforesaid judgment, we do not consider it proper to deal with other judgments cited by learned counsel for the writ petitioner in support of his claim of parity. 17. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Sharma and Others Versus State of Rajasthan (supra), in our opinion, clearly supports the case of petitioner regarding parity though they may not be exactly identical. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge to the extent of parity does not warrant any interference. 18. It is not in dispute that the Research Associates were considered for regularization in services and the Research Assistants were excluded. Therefore, considering that the petitioner had worked for a very long period, the directions for regularization need not be interfered with. 19. Though, an argument was raised before us that sanctioned post is not available, it is clear that during the pendency of the writ petition when the writ petition was filed in the year 2011, the University of Rajasthan had already issued advertisement in the year 2009 for filling up of two vacant posts of Research Assistants. 19. Though, an argument was raised before us that sanctioned post is not available, it is clear that during the pendency of the writ petition when the writ petition was filed in the year 2011, the University of Rajasthan had already issued advertisement in the year 2009 for filling up of two vacant posts of Research Assistants. We need not further go into this aspect because in the compliance of the directions of learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has actually been regularized on sanctioned and vacant post. 20. The arguments of leaned counsel for the respondents is that relying upon the decision in the case of Dr. Chanchal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) may not apply in the present case as the said case proceeds on different factual premise. The present is not a case where the petitioner has come only on legitimate expectation. The petitioner has been held not to be a project employee by the order passed in the earlier round of litigation. The continuance of the petitioner and subsequent claim of regularization is based on the fact that Research Associates were considered for regularization and regularized. If that be so, claim of regularization could not be set aside particularly when the writ petitioner had worked for a long time and that he was selected not through backdoor entry but by a regular process of selection. 21. The writ petitioner’s claim is sought to be opposed on the ground that he was out of service for a long period until he was reinstated by judicial order. We have no doubt in our mind that once the order of termination is held illegal and a person is reinstated in service under the orders of the Court, the legal consequences flowing from such order are that the person shall be deemed to have continued in service right from the initial date of appointment without any break in service. Applying the principles of restitution, it can be safely concluded that once the petitioner was reinstated in service, for all purposes including consideration of claim for regularization, he has to be treated in service with effect from initial date of appointment. Applying the principles of restitution, it can be safely concluded that once the petitioner was reinstated in service, for all purposes including consideration of claim for regularization, he has to be treated in service with effect from initial date of appointment. In the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed on 26.04.1991, therefore, a direction for regularization of his services by the learned Single Judge both on the ground of long continuance and parity and further taking into consideration that it was not a backdoor entry but through selection in an open advertisement, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order of regularization. This, however, would be as Research Assistant. The petitioner’s claim for re-designation as Assistant Professor cannot be accepted for want of any particular rule or policy decision. The claim of parity on the basis of re-designation as Assistant Professor is liable to be rejected mainly on the basis that as between Assistant Professor and Research Associate, there may be far more similarity rather than that between Research Assistant and the Assistant Professor. The parity drawn by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Sharma and Others vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) itself shows that broad parity was drawn but not absolute parity. Therefore, claim for re-designation cannot be accepted and the petitioner has to remain content with the direction of regularization as Research Assistant. 22. Learned Single Judge directed that the regularization shall be with effect from the date when the order of regularization was passed but not from initial date of appointment. On such aspect, we would only say that the petitioner will be entitled to regularization in service from the date the vacant post was made available and not from the date prior to that. However, as far as actual benefits are concerned, we are not inclined to extend the same, though all notional fixation would be done. 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the University of Rajasthan i.e. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 715/2015 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner i.e. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1041/2014 is partly allowed in the manner and to the extent as indicated hereinabove. All the benefits, which arise from the order of this Court, should be extended to the writ petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months.