ORDER : 1. In nutshell, the petitioners by way of filing present writ petitions are seeking a direction to the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 with effect from 1.9.1988 (cash benefit from 1.4.1984) as per circular dated 25.1.1992. 2. This is second round of writ petition. 3. Indisputably, the petitioners had filed previous writ petitions claiming to be entitled to be paid pay scale No.07 in terms of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989’). The writ petitions filed by the petitioners came to be allowed by this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court held that the petitioners shall be entitled to be paid pay scale No.07 under the Rules of 1989 with all consequential benefits. While granting aforesaid relief to the petitioners, the coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the denial of pay scale No.07 to the petitioners in terms of the Rules of 1989 is bad in the eyes of law and the controversy raised by the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.607/1991) and Narpat Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2001(5) WLC (Raj.) 427. 4. In the case of Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union (supra), this Court inter alia directed as under: “Accordingly the writ petition is partly allowed and it is directed that the work charge employees who have been made permanent on completion of ten years of service and who have been absorbed in the regular establishment of the State Government shall be paid pay scale no.7 under the pay scale rules of 1989.” 5. Similarly, in the case of Narpat Singh (supra), this Court laid down as under: “12. In view of the submissions made in writ petition whenever the pay scales were revised in the year 19891, 1983, 1986, 1989 and again in 1998 the Mistris appointed under ‘Workcharge Rules’ were treated equal to Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’. Even otherwise the mistris of both the categories are doing same work. The Government had decided in the year 1988 to revise the pay scale of Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’ w.e.f. 1.9.81, which had created dissatisfaction amongst the petitioners, who have been discriminated. Even otherwise the mistris of both the categories are doing same work. The Government had decided in the year 1988 to revise the pay scale of Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’ w.e.f. 1.9.81, which had created dissatisfaction amongst the petitioners, who have been discriminated. As such the revised pay scale rules as published by Government and made applicable to only one section of mistris, is discriminatory. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I agree with the submission of counsel for petitioners that the petitioners were equal to mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’ and whenever there was any revision of pay scale, the incumbents of both the categories were being treated equal and they have discriminated only by the amendment in the year 1988, which has been reproduced above. Again in the year 1998 the petitioners have again been equated meaning thereby the Government was of the opinion that because of work, qualification and being in the same department, the petitioners could not have been discriminated. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, it goes without saying that the writ petition deserves to be allowed with the direction to the respondents that the petitioners shall also be entitled to the same scale and wages equal to Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’, which pay scale was being paid to present petitioners throughout. The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of pay scale w.e.f. 1.9.81 as has been awarded to Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’, and consequential relief wages etc. shall be paid to petitioners. Such exercise shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 6. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note here that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of “Mistri” on work-charged basis as per the Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1964’). 7. The Department of Finance, Govt. of Rajasthan vide order dated 28.2.1994 discontinued the system of appointment/engagement of workers under the Rules of 1964. However, all work-charged employees, who had rendered 10 years’ of uninterrupted and satisfactory service as on 31.12.1993 were given regular status w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and brought under the purview of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951. They were also extended pay and allowances as applicable to regular government servants. 8. However, all work-charged employees, who had rendered 10 years’ of uninterrupted and satisfactory service as on 31.12.1993 were given regular status w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and brought under the purview of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951. They were also extended pay and allowances as applicable to regular government servants. 8. It is also not in dispute before this Court that in purported compliance of the orders passed by this Court in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners have been given pay scale of Rs.975-1720 w.e.f. 1.9.1988 (cash benefit from 1.4.1994). 9. The grievances of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that as per circular issued by the Finance Department 25.1.1992, the government servants who were drawing pay under the pay scale of Rs.975-1720 (Pay Scale No.7) under the Rules of 1989 were declared to be granted selection grade of Rs.1200-2050 (Pay Scale No.9 of the previous regime). Thus, once the existing pay scale of Rs.975-1720 has been substituted with pay scale of Rs.1200-2050, the respondents while complying with the directions issued by this Court in favour of the petitioners to pay them pay scale No.7 under the Rules of 1989 ought to have made their pay fixations in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 only and not by the previous pay scale of Rs.975-1720. 10. On a close scrutiny of the case file, this Court finds that the respondent department itself has extended the pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 to the similarly situated employees while implementing the orders passed in their favour by this Court allowing them substituted pay scale No.7. Further, a perusal of the departmental correspondences/note-sheets dated 4.11.2019, 13.11.2019 and 25.4.2021 attached with the case files reveals that the respondent department itself is considering allowing the pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 to all similarly situated employees including the present petitioners. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and after perusing the case file, this Court finds that the existing pay scale No.7 of Rs.975-1750 has been substituted by the pay scale No.7 of Rs.1200-2050 vide circular dated 25.1.1992 issued by the Finance Department. The action of the respondents in depriving the petitioners from pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 thus cannot be sustained. The present petitioners cannot be given a differential treatment vis-a-vis to those who have been given pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 on its being substituted under circular dated 25.1.1992. 12. The action of the respondents in depriving the petitioners from pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 thus cannot be sustained. The present petitioners cannot be given a differential treatment vis-a-vis to those who have been given pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 on its being substituted under circular dated 25.1.1992. 12. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled to be paid pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 w.e.f. 1.9.1988 (cash benefit from 1.4.1994), for just and proper implementation of the orders passed in favour of the petitioners in the first round of litigation granting them pay scale No.7, in terms of the Rules of 1989 so also substituted in conformity with the circular dated 25.1.1992. 13. The needful exercise may be done by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. 14. A copy of this order be placed in each file.