ORDER : Application (I.A. No. 1/2023) For the reasons stated in the application, legal representatives of petitioner No. 1 are ordered to be brought on record. Amended cause title be placed on the court file. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Writ Petition: 1. Grievance herein is qua alleged erroneous pay fixation of the petitioners while serving as heads of departments in various educational institutions under the administrative control of Department of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan. 2. Petitioner No. 1 passed away during the pendency of the writ petition, holding onto the hope of mitigation of his grievance during his lifetime. 3. Facts of the case are not disputed. Petitioners no. 1 to 3 were initially promoted on ad-hoc basis as head of department in their respective Government Polytechnic Colleges at Sirohi, Jodhpur and Pali. They continued to work on the said posts until eventually they were granted regular promotions. The claim of the petitioners is that they ought to have been given the revised pay-scales as per the applicable AICTE Rules, on the posts they were manning by giving minimum them pay of Rs. 14,940 in the pay-scale of Rs. 12,000- 18,300 on completion of five years of their serving as head of the departments. 4. Respective dates of promotions (on ad-hoc basis vis-a-vis regular promotion) of petitioners are culled out as under: S. No. Name Date of Ad-hoc promotion as HOD under Rule 27 of the Rules Date of Regular promotion as HOD under Rule 24(2) of the Rules 1. Rajesh Vyas 09.01.1996 31.03.2000 2. Seeta Ram Jalandhara 09.01.1996 06.11.1997 3. P.L. Malviya 09.01.1996 31.03.1999 4. B.L. Soni 09.01.1996 31.03.1999 5. It is stated that, considering their temporary/ad-hoc period of serving as heads of departments, petitioners completed five years on the promotional post in January 2001. Their case is that merely because they were serving on a temporary or ad-hoc basis due to inaction of the department to take appropriate steps to accord them regular promotions, despite their being fully eligible for the same, the benefit of revised pay scale could not have been denied to them. Yet, said benefit was not accorded and hence the petition herein. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. I.S. Pareek representing the respondents. 7. Yet, said benefit was not accorded and hence the petition herein. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. I.S. Pareek representing the respondents. 7. The adjudication of controversy pivots around applicability of Rule 9(c) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales for Government Polytechnic Colleges Teachers) Rules, 2001. For ready relevant extract is reproduced here in below: Rule 9(c): “The fixation of pay of Head of Department, Reader and equivalent post who were selected strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to them and who were in position as Head of Department, Reader and equivalent post as on 1.9.1996, will be made in a manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs. 14,940/- in the revised AICTE Pay Scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300 as and when they complete five years on the post.” 7.1. A perusal of the above reflects that the fixation of pay for Head of Department, Reader, and equivalent positions, has to be at the minimum of Rs. 14,940 within the revised AICTE Pay Scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300. The fixation of pay at a minimum level ensures a degree of equity among individuals serving in similar positions. 8. Before adverting to the merits of the claim, it is pertinent to note that record reveals that it was way back, when vide a letter dated 21.03.2002 (Annex.6), the Joint Director, Technical Education, it was conveyed that the petitioners are not entitled to seek the benefit of temporary/ad-hoc services. The petitioners then submitted representations, which remained unattended. No formal order of rejection of representations was ever passed. Having waited/pursued long enough, writ petition was file finally in year 2016. 9. On a court query regarding delay in filing the petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners states that the said benefits are recurring in nature. The cause of action continues from day to day. Petitioners were throughout sanguine that their claim would be accepted. Having waited for the competent authority to take a decision on the same, only when they finally lost hope of any action on the part of the respondents, the instant petition has been filed. As far as the respondents, they have on their own not even raised any objection on the delayed filing of the writ petition. 10. Having waited for the competent authority to take a decision on the same, only when they finally lost hope of any action on the part of the respondents, the instant petition has been filed. As far as the respondents, they have on their own not even raised any objection on the delayed filing of the writ petition. 10. Be that as it may, petitioners also plead in the petition that AICTE circular dated 30.12.1999 ibid, was not in the knowledge of the petitioners. It is stated in the circular that for the purpose of counting the duration of service to accord the benefit of senior scales/selection grades, the temporary/contractual/ad-hoc/leave vacancy period is also to be counted, provided that the tenure of such appointment was one year or more. When the petitioners were made aware of the aforesaid AICTE circular, they then filed the instant petition, seeking benefit thereof, read in conjunction with the applicable Rules. Ordinarily, this Court would not have interfered in the matter on the ground of sheer delay, however, since matters of pay-fixation are recurring cause of action for an employee, having future consequences and, to that extent grievance of the petitioners needs a redressal. 11. Reverting now the merits of the claim, for the purpose of counting 5 years as per Rule 9(c) ibid, a circular dated 30.12.1999 was issued by the AICTE, relevant portion thereof is reproduced here under: “9.0 COUNTING OF QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR CAREER ADVANCEMENT 9.1. Counting of service within the present Institution: The duration of service in a temporary capacity/contract appointment/ad-hoc appointment/leave vacancy can be counted for promotion to Senior Scale/ Selection Grade provided that: (a) the tenure of such appointment was one year or more than one year, without any break. (b) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendations of a Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by concerned Board of Governors/Institution's regulations/Directorate of Technical Education/State Government/Central Government. (c) the concerned Lecturer possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by AICTE for appointment as Lecturers. (d) the incumbent was selected to the regular post continuation of service in a temporary capacity/contract appointment/ad hoc appointment/leave vacancy without break.” 12. It is thus clear from the above that Service in temporary capacity, contract appointment, ad-hoc appointment, or leave vacancy can count towards promotion to Senior Scale/Selection Grade. (d) the incumbent was selected to the regular post continuation of service in a temporary capacity/contract appointment/ad hoc appointment/leave vacancy without break.” 12. It is thus clear from the above that Service in temporary capacity, contract appointment, ad-hoc appointment, or leave vacancy can count towards promotion to Senior Scale/Selection Grade. However certain conditions are attached as enumerated i.e. ad-hoc tenure must be one year or more without any break; appointment must be based on recommendations from a Selection Committee; candidate must have minimum qualifications as prescribed by AICTE and continuation on the same ad-hoc/temporary post on regular basis must be without a break. It is not even the case of the respondents that these conditions are not met by the petitioners. 13. Learned Senior counsel also argues on the lines of view expressed in a judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11932/2012 dated 11.08.2014. Speaking for this Court, Mohd. Rafiq, J. (as his lordship was then in this Court) opined therein, as below: “The controversy involved in this matter is no longer res-integra as this issue has been decided against the respondent upto the Supreme Court following the decisions albeit in the context of the Lecturers working in the Government Colleges of College Education Department. Herein, the only distinction is that the petitioners although working in the corresponding posts are not working in College Education Department, but they are employees of the Technical Education Department. It is not in dispute that the terms on which both the said employees have been granted benefit in the scheme of Career Advancement which in terms of the directions issued by the University Grants Commission. The AICTE herein has also adopted the same guidelines. The AICTE notification dated 30.12.1999 has provided for revision of pay scale and associated terms and conditions of the service of Teachers etc. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx There is no manner of doubt from reading of the aforesaid provisions that duration of service in a temporary capacity/contract appointment/ad-hoc appointment/leave vacancy can be counted for promotion of senior scale/selection grade provided that the tenure of such appointment was 8 year or more than one year, without any break on the recommendation of the selection committee and that the incumbent was selected to the particular post in continuous of service in a temporary capacity/contract appointment/ ad-hoc appointment/leave vacancy without any break. This was precisely the analogy on which the claim of the Lecturers of the College Education Department was upheld by this Court in successive judgments rendered by single bench and upheld by division bench which judgments were eventually also upheld by the Supreme Court. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be succeed and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.01.2011 and 11.04.2012 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to count the period of ad hoc service of the petitioners for grant of promotion as Lecturer (Senior Scale) under Career Advancement Scheme and grant them selection grade of the post and pay all consequential benefits counting their ad hoc period of service with interest @ 9% per annum.” 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon an earlier judgment dated 05.08.2014 rendered by another Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1845/2002, Narain Manwani vs. State of Rajathan and Others. Having perused the same, I am of the view that the same does not directly deal with the controversy herein and also does not lay down any parameters and/or in any manner interpret either the circular dated 30.12.1999 of AICTE or the rules relied upon by the petitioners. In fact, writ petition therein was simply dismissed, without much discussion, in view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply. 15. Whereas, opinion expressed in the judgment rendered in Vishnu Kumar (supra), with which I am in respectful agreement, and I have no manner of doubt that petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the same. I see no reason as to why the petitioners be, therefore, not accorded the benefit thereof. 16. As an upshot, impugned order dated 21.03.2002 (Annexure.6) is quashed. Petitioners are held to be entitled to the higher pay scale as per Rule 9(c) ibid w.e.f. from the date of completion of five years of their initial promotion on ad-hoc basis. The respondents are directed to carry out the corrections in the pay fixation of the petitioner accordingly. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date they approach department with a web print of the instant order. The respondents are directed to carry out the corrections in the pay fixation of the petitioner accordingly. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date they approach department with a web print of the instant order. As regards the delay in approaching the Court, despite having the knowledge of the rejection of their claim by the Government vide communication dated 21.03.2002 (Annexure.6), the petitioners are themselves responsible, therefore, for the said period they shall only be given notional benefits and will not receive any interest for the period of delay, to be calculated with effect from the date of passing of the impugned order/letter (Annex.6) until three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. Thereafter they shall be entitled to the arrears of pay along with applicable interest, till actual payment, as per service Rules. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.