JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 24.8.2016 (Annexure-9) whereby the request of the petitioner for counting her past services for the purposes of conferment of selection grade, seniority, promotion and pension has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 12.9.1995 as a lecturer with Shri Pareek Varisth Upadhyay Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Nagaur which was an Institution receiving aid from the Government. She was confirmed on the said post on 11.9.1996 and continued to work with the said institute for a period of almost 12 years. In the year 2007, she was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in pursuance to direct recruitment on the post of Head Master and was afforded appointment with effect from 24.07.2007. After completion of two years’ probation period, she was fixed in the pay scale of 9300—34800 with a grade pay of Rs.4200 /-with effect from 30.7.2007. 3. In the year 2010, a scheme for absorption of the employees working with the Non-Governmental Educational Institutes in the government services was introduced and the rules governing their terms and conditions of service were framed with the nomenclature as “Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010” (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2010'). The said Rules were framed specifically for regulating the appointment and other service conditions of the persons appointed in terms of the said Rules. In terms of the said Rules, the employees working with the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutes were given an option to be appointed under the said Rules of 2010 and were granted appointment on the terms and conditions as prescribed under the said Rules. Rule 5 (iv) of the rules of 2010 provided that the employees appointed in terms of the said rules would be allowed the benefit of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme as allowed to other employees of State Government. The rule further provided that the period from the date of their appointment on the sanctioned and aided posts would be counted for the purpose of grant of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme. The rule further provided that the period from the date of their appointment on the sanctioned and aided posts would be counted for the purpose of grant of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme. This condition in the Rules of 2010 is the one on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming parity and therefore, moved representation dated 27.07.2016 with a prayer that her services with the previous aided institute be counted for the purposes of financial upgradations as well as other service benefits. It was also prayed that she be granted the protection of pay with effect from her date of selection in the government services as she ought to have been fixed on the pay scale equivalent to the last pay she was receiving prior to her present appointment. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected vide communication dated 24.8.2016 on the premise that she had been appointed in pursuance to the direct recruitment in the year 2007 and therefore the Rules of 2010 would not be applicable on her. It is the said rejection that is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Manoj Bhandari appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working on a sanctioned and regular post in an institute receiving the aid by the Government and therefore was entitled to be treated equivalent to the employees absorbed with the Government in terms of Rules of 2010. Vide the Rules of 2010, all those employees who were equivalent to her have been granted the benefit of the years of service put in by them in the aided institute and therefore she is also entitled to the said benefit in parity. Counsel further submitted that although the petitioner stands on the same footing, her past services are not been counted for the purposes of grant of Assured Career Progression whereas, the employees absorbed in terms of Rules of 2010 are being granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression counting their services from the date of their initial appointment with the Aided Institute. Therefore she, although being equally situated and discharging the same duties, is deprived of the equivalent benefits. Therefore she, although being equally situated and discharging the same duties, is deprived of the equivalent benefits. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in terms of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RSR’) she is entitled to the protection of pay and non-grant of the same being wholly illegal deserves interference by this Court. Counsel further submitted that in terms of Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension Rules’) petitioner is entitled for counting of her past services for the purposes of pension too. 5. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel Mr. Manoj Bhandari relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal and Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors. [ (2000) 1 SCC 644 ] and the judgments passed by this Court in the matters of K.C. Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2196/2002) decided on 4.9.2008 and Dr. Rajeev Mangal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.1592/2008) decided on 22.05.2008. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner are totally misconceived as the petitioner was appointed through Direct Recruitment in the year 2007 and the rules in question, ‘the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010’ were even introduced in the year 2010. Therefore, the Rules of 2010 could not have been given a retrospective effect and the petitioner could not be granted any benefit in terms of the rules which were not even applicable on her. Further, Rules of 2010 were applicable for only those employees who were absorbed in government services in terms of the conditions as prescribed under the said Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner was not absorbed in the government services and therefore the said Rules could not have been applicable on her. So far as Rule 26 of the RSR is concerned the same is applicable only for the government employees and admittedly the petitioner was not a 'Government employee' prior to her appointment in the year 2007. Admittedly, the petitioner was not absorbed in the government services and therefore the said Rules could not have been applicable on her. So far as Rule 26 of the RSR is concerned the same is applicable only for the government employees and admittedly the petitioner was not a 'Government employee' prior to her appointment in the year 2007. An employee working with an aided institute cannot be termed to be a government servant by any interpretation and therefore, the petitioner cannot be governed either by Rule 26 of the RSR or by Rule 33 of the Pension Rules. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted fact on record that the petitioner was working on a sanctioned post with an institute recognised and receiving aid from the State Government. The institute with which the petitioner was working was admittedly a “Non-Government Aided Educational Institution”. As soon as the petitioner claims parity on basis of the Rules of 2010, she ipso facto agrees to the fact that she was working with a Non-Government Institute as the Rules of 2010 had been framed only for the employees working with a Non-Government Aided Educational Institution. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for protection of pay in terms of Rule 26 of the RSR and counting of the past services in terms of Rule 33 of the Pension Rules falls flat on the face of it. Rule 26 of the RSR opens with the words, “A Government servant……….”. Similarly, Rule 33 of the Pension Rules also starts with the words “A Government servant………….”. For ready reference, Rule 26 of the RSR and Rule 33 of the Pension Rules are reproduced hereunder : “26.(1) A Government servant already serving in one service, cadre or department who is appointed to another service, cadre or department by direct recruitment or special selection, (including transfer other than by deputation) cadre or department to another) and not by promotion according to service rules, shall have his initial pay fixed as follows: CATEGORY LAST PAY ON OLD POST INITIAL PAY ON NEW POST (a) Substantive on a permanent post and not officiating on a higher post. (a) Persons in category (a) shall have pay fixed as in the manner stated below- (i) If the maximum of the scale of the new post is higher than the maximum of the old post, then pay shall be fixed at the stage of the time scale of the new post next above the last substantive pay in the old post. (ii) If the maximum of the scale of the new post is equal to the maximum of the old post, then pay shall be fixed at the stage of the time scale of the new post which is equal to his last substantive pay on the old post, or if there is no such stage, the stage next below that pay plus personal pay equal to the difference. (iii) If the maximum of the scale of the new post is lower than the maximum of the old post, than the pay shall fixed at the stage which he would have been entitled to as if the period of service rendered on the old post would have been counted as rendered against the new post, subject to the condition that the pay fixed shall be restricted to the pay last drawn in the old post. (iv) If minimum pay on the new post is higher than pay admissible under clause (i), (ii) & (iii) above, than minimum pay shall be allowed. (b) (i) Substantive on a lower post but officiating on a higher permanent or temporary post in the same service, cadre or department provided that such officiation was in accordance with the provisions of Service Rules relating to promotion, promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. (ii) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post, provided that appointment was made by direct recruitment, promotion, special selection, Emergency recruitment or as a part of initial constitution of a service or cadre, in accordance with provision of the Service Rules relating to recruitment, promotion, and initial constitution promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. (iii) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post, provided that if there are no service rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and the post was within the purview of the R.P.S.C., appointment was made on the advice of the RPSC. (iii) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post, provided that if there are no service rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and the post was within the purview of the R.P.S.C., appointment was made on the advice of the RPSC. (iv) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post, provided that appointment had been made in the process of absorption of persons declared 'surplus' due to abolition of posts, and that pay drawn on the abolished post was of the type described in paragraphs (a), (b) (i), (b) (ii) and (b) (iii) above. (b) Persons covered by any paragraph in category (b) shall have pay fixed in the manner stated below— (i) If minimum pay of the new post is equal or higher than the last pay in the old post other than that held substantively, then the minimum pay (ii) If minimum pay of the new post, is lower than last pay in the old post other than that held substantively, then pay shall be fixed at the stage of the time scale which is equal to his last pay in the old post or if there is no such stage, the stage next below that pay plus personal pay equal to the difference: Provided that if the maximum of the scale of the new post is lower than the maximum of the old post, than the pay shall be fixed at the stage which he would have been entitled to as if the period of service rendered on the old post would have been counted as rendered against the new post, subject to the condition that the pay so fixed shall be restricted to the pay last drawn in the old post. Provided further that if fixation of pay on the basis of pay admissible on substantive post in accordance with paragraph (a) (i) or (a) (ii) or (a) (iii) above is more advantageous, pay shall be fixed under the said clauses. (c) (i) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post having been appointed adhoc without following the procedure laid down in the Service Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, or the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation and Government instructions issued thereon. (c) (i) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post having been appointed adhoc without following the procedure laid down in the Service Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, or the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation and Government instructions issued thereon. (ii) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post, having been appointed in the process of absorption of person declared ‘surplus’ due to abolition of post but pay drawn on the abolished post was not of the type described in paragraphs (a), (b)(i),(b) (ii) and (b) (iii) above. (iii) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post, appointment to which is not regulated by any Service Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and which is also not within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. (iv) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post other than of the type described in paragraphs (i) to (iii) above. (c) Persons covered by any paragraphs in category (c) shall have pay fixed in the manner stated below:— Minimum of the scale or at such higher stage as may be approved by the Government on the recommendation of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or if the post is outside the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, on the recommendation of the selecting authority. Provided that if the maximum of the scale of the new post is lower than the maximum of the old post, than the pay shall be fixed at the stage which he would have been entitled to as if the period of service rendered on the old post would have been counted as rendered against the new post, subject to the condition that the pay so fixed shall be restricted to the pay last drawn in the old post. Provided further that if fixation of pay on the basis of pay admissible on substantive post in accordance with paragraph (a) (i) or (a) (ii) or (a) (iii) above is more advantageous, pay shall be fixed under the said clauses. (c) (i) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post having been appointed adhoc without following the procedure laid down in the Service Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, or the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation and Government instructions issued thereon. (c) (i) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post having been appointed adhoc without following the procedure laid down in the Service Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, or the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation and Government instructions issued thereon. (ii) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post, having been appointed in the process of absorption of person declared ‘surplus’ due to abolition of post but pay drawn on the abolished post was not of the type described in paragraphs (a), (b)(i),(b) (ii) and (b) (iii) above. (iii) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post, appointment to which is not regulated by any Service Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and which is also not within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. (iv) Temporary on a permanent or temporary post other than of the type described in paragraphs (i) to (iii) above. (c) Persons covered by any paragraphs in category (c) shall have pay fixed in the manner stated below:— Minimum of the scale or at such higher stage as may be approved by the Government on the recommendation of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission or if the post is outside the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, on the recommendation of the selecting authority. "Provided that during probation training period the provisions of this rule shall not be applicable. The probationer-trainee shall be allowed pay in his / her own pay scale of the previous post or fixed remuneration as per provisions of Rule 24. After successful completion of probation training his/ her pay shall be fixed under the provisions of this rule." (2) Pay for the purpose of sub-rule (1) shall mean substantive pay, officiating pay and pay on temporary post and shall not include special pay. After successful completion of probation training his/ her pay shall be fixed under the provisions of this rule." (2) Pay for the purpose of sub-rule (1) shall mean substantive pay, officiating pay and pay on temporary post and shall not include special pay. (3) When appointment to the new post is made at the request of the Government servant under Rule 20(a) or Rule 215(b) and the maximum pay in the time scale of new post is lower than his last pay in the old post, he will draw that maximum of new post as initial pay, (4) (a) In respect of a Government servant whose initial pay is fixed under paragraph (a) (ii), (a) (iii) and (b) (ii) of sub-rule (1) of this rule, the service rendered on his previous post since drawal of last increment shall be counted for purposes of grant of increment in the new post. Exception.-If a Government servant in service as probationer/on probation is appointed to new post before completion of the prescribed period of probation satisfactorily, the period of service rendered on old post shall not be counted for this purpose on the new post. (b) In cases other than (a) above, next date of increment shall be allowed on completion of the full requisite qualifying service counting for increment under Rule 31 of Rajasthan Service Rules.” Rule 33 of the Pension Rules states as under: “33. Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body: A Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government shall, if such absorption is declared by the Government to be in the public interest, be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and shall be eligible to receive retirement benefits which he may have elected or deemed to have elected, and from such date as may be determined, in accordance with the orders of the Government applicable to him.” 9. A bare perusal of the above provisions makes it clear that only a Government servant, if absorbed/ transferred/ deputed to some other Government service would be entitled to the benefits in terms of the above provisions. A bare perusal of the above provisions makes it clear that only a Government servant, if absorbed/ transferred/ deputed to some other Government service would be entitled to the benefits in terms of the above provisions. The reliance of the petitioner on the Rules of 2010 is a clear admission of the fact that she was working with Non-Government Aided Educational Institute and therefore the said admission itself is sufficient to hold that she would not be entitled to any benefit in terms of the above provisions. 10. Now, coming on to the issue whether, the petitioner would be entitled for the benefits in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 equivalent to the employees who were absorbed in terms of the said Rules. 11. For the adjudication of the said issue, consideration of the relevant aspects is as under : 1. A perusal of the Rules of 2010 shows that the said rules were framed with an intent to fill up the vacancies in the remote and the rural areas. The specific condition of Rule 5(iii) of the Rules of 2010 laid down that the appointed employees shall be posted only in the colleges/schools in the rural areas. A perusal of the Rules of 2010 shows that the said rules were framed with an intent to fill up the vacancies in the remote and the rural areas. The specific condition of Rule 5(iii) of the Rules of 2010 laid down that the appointed employees shall be posted only in the colleges/schools in the rural areas. The term "rural area" has been defined in Rule 2 (m) of the Rules of 2010 as under : “(m) “rural area” means the entire State of Rajasthan except the following areas:- (i) an area for which a municipality has been constituted under the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 (Act No. 18 of 2009) or an Urban Improvement Trust has been constituted under Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (Act No. 35 of 1959) or an Authority has been constituted under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (Act No. 25 of 1982) or Jodhpur Development Authority Act, 2009 (Act No. 02 of 2009) or any other Development Authority Constituted by the State Government under the relevant Act, (ii) the urbanisable limits as indicated in the master plan or the master development plan of a city or town prepared under any law for the time being in force, and where there is no master plan or master development plan, the municipal limits of the area, (iii) the peripheral belt as indicated in the master plan or master development plan of a city or a town prepared under any law for the time being in force, and where there is no master plan or master development plan or where peripheral belt is not indicated in such plan, the area as may be notified by the Urban Development Department/Local Self Government Department of the State Government from time to time; xxxx” Admittedly, the petitioner entered into the Government service in the year 2007 without any such condition and was afforded posting in an urban area and is admittedly working at Jodhpur till date. 2. Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules of 2010 provides that the employees appointed under these rules shall not be entitled for any promotion till they attain the age of superannuation. In lieu of the said detriment, they had been allowed the benefit of ACP counting the period from the date of their appointment on the sanctioned and aided post. 2. Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules of 2010 provides that the employees appointed under these rules shall not be entitled for any promotion till they attain the age of superannuation. In lieu of the said detriment, they had been allowed the benefit of ACP counting the period from the date of their appointment on the sanctioned and aided post. Admittedly, the petitioner who has entered into Government service through regular recruitment would be entitled to all promotional avenues as well as financial upgradations permissible to the government employees in terms of law. 3. Further, Rule 5(x) of the Rules of 2010 provided that the period of service in the aided institutions shall not be counted for the payment of gratuity. Rule 5(ix) of the Rules of 2010 provided that if the CPF contribution of the employee would not be deposited by the institute wherein the employee was working prior to the date of their joining, the Government contribution would not be paid by the State Government. It is not the case of the petitioner that she did not receive her gratuity as well as the CPF amount from the institute wherein she was working prior to her selection by the RPSC in the year 2007. 12. From the above provisions of Rules of 2010, it can very well be concluded that the petitioner cannot be termed to be equivalent to the employees absorbed in terms of the Rules of 2010. It is the settled proposition of law that a person cannot approbate and reprobate. On one hand, the petitioner is availing the benefits of working in an urban area, promotional avenues and would be availing the benefit of pension after retirement which admittedly, the employees absorbed in terms of the rules of 2010 are not availing rather they have been, by the conditions of the appointment itself, deprived of the said benefits. By any means, it cannot be held that the petitioner is discharging the same duties as the absorbed employees. 13. Coming on to the issue whether the petitioner could be governed by the Rules of 2010 on the premise of she also having been an employee of a Non-Government Educational Institute, it is relevant to note that the said rules came into existence in the year 2010. 13. Coming on to the issue whether the petitioner could be governed by the Rules of 2010 on the premise of she also having been an employee of a Non-Government Educational Institute, it is relevant to note that the said rules came into existence in the year 2010. The petitioner was appointed by way of direct recruitment in the year 2007, that is, much prior to the Rules of 2010 even coming into existence. The Rules of 2010 have not been given a retrospective effect and it is the settled proposition of law that any piece of Legislation cannot be given a retrospective effect unless and until the same has been provided in the statute itself. Even if for the sake of arguments, the ground as raised by the petitioner is accepted, the same would result into an absurd proposition opening a Pandora’s box of Litigation. There would be thousands of employees working with the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutes prior to 2010 who would have entered Government services vide some mode of recruitment at some point of time prior to 2010. If the Rules of 2010 would be given a retrospective effect, the same would apply to all those thousands of employees resulting into a chaos. The question then would arise as to what would be the outer limit to which the Rules of 2010 can be given a retrospective effect. It cannot be presumed that an employee like the present petitioner, who was appointed in 2007, would be extended the benefits in terms of the Rules of 2010 and the employees appointed prior to 2007 would not be granted the said benefits. No distinction can therefore be made between any of the employees who entered into government service prior to 2010. Neither can such be the intention of the legislation and this Court is of the specific opinion that no such absurd proposition can be given a way to. 14. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for petitioner are concerned, all of them relate to the cases wherein the parties were admittedly the Government servants who were either transferred or deputed or absorbed in some other Government service. 14. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for petitioner are concerned, all of them relate to the cases wherein the parties were admittedly the Government servants who were either transferred or deputed or absorbed in some other Government service. The ratio as laid down in the said judgments would definitely not apply to the present petitioner as firstly, she was not a 'Government Servant' prior to her appointment in the year 2007 and secondly, she was neither absorbed nor deputed nor transferred from one Government service to some other Government service. 15. One more important aspect of the matter is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2007, was confirmed in the year 2009 and the rules under consideration came into effect in the year 2010. Till all this time, the petitioner did not raise any grievance and it is only in the year 2016 when for the first time she preferred a representation for the reliefs prayed for in the present Writ Petition. The two representations placed on record also substantiates the said fact as the first representation is un-dated and no proof of the same having being sent or served has been placed on record. The second representation mentions the same to be of 27.7.2016 which has been responded immediately vide the impugned communication dated 24.8.2016. Meaning thereby, the grievance if any, was raised for the first time in the year 2016 only. Therefore also, any grievance regarding the benefits paid to the petitioner at the time of her appointment in the year 2007 being raised in the year 2016 cannot be entertained by this Court at such a belated stage. The claim of the petitioner for pay protection is firstly not tenable in view of the observations made in the preceding paras and secondly, even if she had any such right, the same would clearly be termed to have been waived by her and any relief qua the said grievance after a period of nine (9) years can not be entertained also on the ground of delay and laches. 16. In view of the above observations, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition and the same being devoid of merits is therefore, dismissed. The stay petition and all the pending applications also stand disposed of.