JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 20.03.2008 (Annex.9) whereby appointment given to the petitioner on the post of “Junior Engineer” vide order dated 20.08.2007, stood withdrawn. 2. The facts are that the petitioner who was appointed in the year 1992 as “Beldar”, was subsequently terminated. However, a dispute was raised and Reference was made to the Labour Court, who, vide its Award dated 10.06.1997, directed for re-instatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was reinstated in compliance of Award dated 10.06.1997 and the writ petition as preferred by the State against Award dated 10.06.1997 stood dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2000. 4. In the year 1989, State Government introduced an amendment in the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1967 and vide the said amendment, it was provided that all those employees appointed on work-charge basis and had put in atleast two years continuous service as on 01.04.1988; and all such other employees who had been working on the lower post in the Department but possessed the requisite qualification for direct recruitment to any of the higher posts, may be considered once for appointment on the said higher post against the direct recruitment quota. 5. It was further provided that upto 50% vacant posts could be filled out of the category of work-charge employees. 6. Vide Notification dated 09.05.1997, the respondent- Department was also directed to be governed by the said amended provision. In pursuance to the said notification, the respondent-Department invited applications from the eligible candidates and even provided appointment to certain work- charged employees. 7. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he not having been re-instated till that date, could not have applied and could not have been appointed. He moved an application for similar treatment after been reinstated and submitted that he being qualified for the post of Junior Engineer, be afforded appointment on the said post. 8. Acting upon the application of the petitioner and keeping into consideration the fact that the petitioner had completed two years of service and possessed the qualification for the post of a Junior Engineer, vide order dated 20.08.2007 (Annex.8), holding the petitioner to be entitled in terms of notifications dated 21.12.1989 and 09.05.1997, he was afforded appointment on the post of Junior Engineer. 9. 9. However, vide impugned office order dated 20.03.2008 (Annex.9), order dated 20.08.2007 (Annex.8) stood withdrawn. The said withdrawal was for the reason that the petitioner did not complete two years of service as on 01.04.1988 which was a specific condition of notification dated 21.12.1989. 10. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is erroneous insofar as similarly situated persons had been appointed by the respondent-Department as Junior Engineer in pursuance to notification of the year 1989 and that of the year 1997. To be specific, counsel pointed out that one employee, namely Praveen Raj Chouhan, who was initially appointed in the year 1993 i.e. subsequent to petitioner’s appointment in year 1992, was afforded appointment as a Junior Engineer. 11. Counsel further relied upon clarification dated 19.10.2006 (Annex.P/12) as given by the Chief Engineer of the respondent- Department whereby it was specifically informed that the departmental employees who had been given appointment on the post of Junior Engineer also included those who had initially been appointed after 01.04.1986 and also those who had obtained the requisite qualification of degree/diploma subsequent to 01.04.1988. 12. Counsel submitted that once the Department afforded appointment to those employees who were initially appointed after the cut-off date as prescribed in notification dated 21.12.1989, the present petitioner could not have been denied the said benefit. Counsel submitted that the order impugned being erroneous, deserves to be quashed. 13. Counsel for the respondent-State however submitted that notification dated 21.12.1989 contemplated a specific stipulation to the effect that only those work-charge employees were to be afforded appointment on the higher post who had completed two years of service as on 01.04.1988. That being the specific condition of the notification, any benefit to any employee who had not completed two years of service as on 01.04.1988 could not have been afforded benefit of the said notification. He submitted that the benefit granted to the petitioner has rightly been withdrawn and even the Officer who passed order dated 20.08.2007 has been called for an explanation. 14. Heard learned counsels. Perused the record. 15. Before proceeding on to adjudicate the issue, reproduction of amended provision vide notification dated 21.12.1989 would be apt. He submitted that the benefit granted to the petitioner has rightly been withdrawn and even the Officer who passed order dated 20.08.2007 has been called for an explanation. 14. Heard learned counsels. Perused the record. 15. Before proceeding on to adjudicate the issue, reproduction of amended provision vide notification dated 21.12.1989 would be apt. The relevant portion of notification dated 21.12.1989 reads as follows :- “In each of the Service Rules specified in column No.2 the Schedule appended hereto, after the existing proviso to the rule mentioned against each in column No.3 the following proviso shall be added, namely :- that persons employed on work charged basis in Public Works Department Irrigation Indira Gandhi Nahar Board (including Indira Gandhi Nahar Board Command Area Development) Department Ayurved Department and who have put in at least two years continuous service as on 1-4-88 and such other employees who have been working on lower posts in the department and possess the requisite qualifications for direct recruitment to any of the post of Driver, Tracers, Foreman, Junior Draftsman, Laboratory Assistant, Laboratory Attendant etc., may be considered once only for appointment on these posts against direct requirement quota along with fresh names received from open market candidates and upto 50% vacant posts may be filled out of the above categories of work-charged employee and other employees in relaxation of age limit prescribed in these rules. Provided they are otherwise found suitable by the Selection Committee. The concerned Appointing Authority while inviting applications for direct recruitment to these posts may also invite applications from work charged employees and other employees working on lower posts in the department possessing the requisite qualifications for the posts.” 16. A bare perusal of the above provision reflects that it provides for two class of employees: first, those employed on work-charge basis and had put in atleast two years of continuous service as on 01.04.1988; second, such other employees who had been working on the lower post in the Department and possessed the requisite qualification of a higher post. Meaning thereby it is not only the work-charged employees who had completed two years of service as on 01.04.1988 who were to be considered in terms of the notification but those other employees who had been working on the lower post were also entitled to be considered. Meaning thereby it is not only the work-charged employees who had completed two years of service as on 01.04.1988 who were to be considered in terms of the notification but those other employees who had been working on the lower post were also entitled to be considered. So far as the other employees is concerned, the notification does not prescribe for any cut-off date. 17. Further, it is undisputed that similarly situated other people who had been initially appointed after notification dated 21.12.1989 having come into effect, were given the benefit of the said notification. Furthermore, even those incumbents who had been initially appointed after the petitioner, having been given the benefit of the notification is also not denied. In that event, it is incomprehensible as to how the petitioner could have been denied the said benefit. The basic principle of equity and parity is that the State instrumentality cannot act arbitrarily and cannot discriminate between its employees. When once it is admitted that the respondent-Department proceeded on to give benefit of notification dated 21.12.1989 to those employees who had entered into service even subsequent to the petitioner, discriminatory action against the petitioner is clearly bad. Order impugned dated 20.03.2008 (Annex.9) therefore deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. As by virtue of interim order dated 26.03.2008, the petitioner continued on the post of Junior Engineer and superannuated as such, it is hereby, held that he was entitled to continue so. As the petitioner has now superannuated, he would be entitled for all retiral benefits as per his service on the post of Junior Engineer. 19. The petitioner shall also be entitled for notional benefits w.e.f. 21.05.1997 as directed vide order dated 20.08.2007 (Annex.8) and the actual benefits w.e.f. 20.08.2007. 20. The writ petition stands allowed 21. Stay petition and all applications, if any, stand disposed of.