ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(A) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to made fixation of the Petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 and its corresponding pay scales from the date of joining in the Medical and Health Services Department and pay the arrears of salary with 12% per annum interest. (B) That the seniority and other monetary benefits may also be granted to the Petitioner from the date of initial appointment of the Petitioner and other consequential benefits may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner. (C) That by an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondent Authorities to appoint the Petitioner on the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant or its equivalent post. (D) Any other appropriate writ order or direction may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (E) Cost of the Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.” 2. The facts are that the petitioner was accorded compassionate appointment on the post of Lab Assistant vide order dated 28.01.1995. However, the petitioner was declared surplus in the year 2001 and hence, in terms of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1969’), he was required to be absorbed on some other vacant post. 3. At that point of time, the petitioner consented in writing to be absorbed on the post of ‘Ward Boy’ with a lower pay scale. In view of the consent given by the petitioner, vide order dated 12.07.2001, he was appointed as a ‘Ward Boy’ with the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Hanumangarh. Vide the said order it was specifically directed that his seniority shall be counted with effect from his date of joining with the Medical & Health Department. 4. The petitioner was subsequently even confirmed on the post of Ward Boy. However, in the year 2004, the petitioner raised dispute regarding his pay fixation and submitted that his pay fixation ought to be on the post of Lab Assistant and not equivalent to that of a Ward Boy. 5. The writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2935/2010) as filed by the petitioner at the first instance stood disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2014 (Annexure-15) whereby the respondents were directed to decide the representation as filed by the petitioner within a period of three months. 5. The writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2935/2010) as filed by the petitioner at the first instance stood disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2014 (Annexure-15) whereby the respondents were directed to decide the representation as filed by the petitioner within a period of three months. In pursuance to order dated 02.09.2014, a representation was filed by the petitioner which stood decided vide order impugned dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure-16). 6. Although a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9934/2014) was filed against the above order but then, the same was withdrawn with the liberty to file afresh. In view of the said liberty, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the consent as given by the petitioner was to be appointed with the Agricultural Department and not to be appointed on any lower post. Further, even if appointed on a lower post, he was entitled for ‘pay protection’. Counsel submits that even if it is assumed that the consent was given to be appointed on a lower post, it was only because at the relevant point of time, there was no equivalent post available. Once the equivalent post became available, the petitioner ought to have been reabsorbed on the said post. By all means, the petitioner was definitely entitled for ‘pay protection’. 8. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-State submits that once having consented to be absorbed qua a lower post, the petitioner is estopped from raising any ground qua the same and consequently, is not entitled for any benefit equivalent to a Lab Assistant. 9. Counsel further submits that after being confirmed on the post of Ward Boy, the petitioner cannot now claim any benefit of the post of Lab Assistant. 10. Heard learned counsels and perused the material available on record. 11. It is not disputed that the petitioner was declared surplus in the year 2001. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1969 provides for the procedure to be adopted on an employee being declared surplus. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1969 reads as under: “7. Procedure of Absorption: (1) The Committee shall allot surplus personnel to the departments or services wherein equated, equivalent or lower vacant post or posts may be available for appointment and shall also specify the vacant post or posts against which surplus employee or employees are to be absorbed. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1969 reads as under: “7. Procedure of Absorption: (1) The Committee shall allot surplus personnel to the departments or services wherein equated, equivalent or lower vacant post or posts may be available for appointment and shall also specify the vacant post or posts against which surplus employee or employees are to be absorbed. On receipt of orders of allotment of surplus personnel from the Committee. The Appointing Authority shall issue orders for appointment such orders for appointment such appointment to be substantive, officiating, temporary or ad-hoc on such post or posts as indicated below:- S. No. Nature of post held by him on the date declared surplus Nature of appointment held by him on the date declared surplus Nature of appointment to be given after absorption. 1 2 3 4 (a) Permanent substantive (a) Substantive on permanent post if the post is clearly vacant. If the post is not clearly vacant or if lien thereon is held by another person, the Government on being moved by the appointing authority shall create a supernumerary post for providing lien thereon to the absorbed employee. (b) Permanent lower post which continues to exist. Substantive but officiating on higher post from which declared surplus. (b) Officiating on new post, while continuing to hold lien on permanent lower post in the Department from which he was declared surplus. (c) Permanent lower post which also ceased to exist along with higher post. Substantive on permanent lower post but officiating on higher post. (c) Officiating on new post, but Government on being moved by the appointing authority shall create supernumerary post equal to the lower post and upon such creation substantive appointment shall be made on such lower post. (d) Temporary Temporary Temporary (e) Temporary Ad-hoc Ad-hoc 7(1A). The Government may, by an order, delegate the powers of the Committee to the Member- Secretary of the Committee in respect of absorption of all surplus personnel of the Subordinate Services all over the State which are not within the purview of the Commission and absorption of all surplus personnel of the Ministerial and Class IV service declare surplus in Jaipur District. (2) The Government may, by order, delegate the powers of the *(Committee) to the Collectors of the districts in respect of the Ministerial and class IV employees serving within their respective districts. (2) The Government may, by order, delegate the powers of the *(Committee) to the Collectors of the districts in respect of the Ministerial and class IV employees serving within their respective districts. (3) In respect of the period from 1st January, 1954 to the date of publication of these Rules, the various circulars of the Appointments and General Administration Departments of the Government mentioned in the Schedule, and applied during the said period for the appointment by absorption of surplus employees, shall apply in relation to them as if they form part of these rules and such appointments shall be substantive, officiating, temporary or ad-hoc as indicated in the table given below sub-rule (1) hereof. (4) Surplus Personnel absorbed on lower post or on equated post may on making an application be re- absorbed on equivalent post or on the same post from which they were declared surplus, if they have not been confirmed on the post they were absorbed and the absorption committee is satisfied that hardship has been caused to them by their absorption on the lower or equated post due to non-availability of vacancy at the time of their absorption. Such re- absorption shall be prospective from the date of re-absorption.” 12. A bare perusal of the above rules reflects that any surplus personnel can be absorbed on an equated, equivalent or a lower vacant post or any post which may be available for appointment. Meaning thereby, the absorption of an employee is legally permissible on a lower vacant post too. 13. In Chaina Ram Khot Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 798/2008 (decided on 02.02.2009), the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1969 in a similar situation specifically held that Rule 7 cannot be interpreted in a manner that a person declared surplus can only be absorbed on the equivalent post. Therein the Court held as under: “6. As per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1969, which provides the procedure for absorption, the absorption committee constituted by the State Government shall allot surplus personnel to the departments or services wherein equated, equivalent or lower vacant post or posts may be available for appointment and shall also specify the vacant post or posts against which surplus employee or employees are to be absorbed. Thus, from Rule 7 , in no manner, it can be inferred that a person declared surplus can only be absorbed on the equivalent post. To the contrary, it specifically provides that the surplus employee may be allotted to the departments even for absorption on the available lower vacant post. 7. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1969 referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant only deals with the seniority of a surplus employee appointed substantively to a permanent post in the service or cadre in which he is absorbed. The said rule also does not suggest in any manner that a person declared surplus should always be absorbed on the post equivalent to the post held by him in his parent department. 8. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel that the appellant could not have been absorbed on the post lower than the post held by him in his parent department on work charge basis is devoid of any merit.” 14. In view of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1969 which permits the absorption of a surplus employee on a lower post, this Court does not find any illegality in the order whereby the petitioner was absorbed on the post of Ward Boy and that too, after his written consent. 15. Further, as per Rule 7 (4) of the Rules of 1969, any surplus personnel who had been absorbed on a lower post can be re- absorbed on an equivalent post or on the same post from which he was declared surplus, provided he has not been confirmed on the absorbed post. Herein, admittedly the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Ward Boy after being appointed vide order dated 12.07.2001. In view of the fact that he had been confirmed way back on the post of of Ward Boy, he cannot be held entitled for pay fixation in accordance with the post of Lab Assistant in terms of Rule 7 (4) of the Rules of 1969. 16. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner was ordered to be absorbed on 12.07.2001. At that point of time, vide application dated 06.08.2001 (Annexure-R/1), he submitted in writing as under: 17. 16. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner was ordered to be absorbed on 12.07.2001. At that point of time, vide application dated 06.08.2001 (Annexure-R/1), he submitted in writing as under: 17. Further, vide communication dated 04.07.2001 (Annexure- 18), the petitioner submitted in writing that he has no objection if his seniority is considered with effect from the date he joined with the Medical & Health Department. 18. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner acquiesced with his absorption on the post of a ‘Ward Boy’ and therefore, he cannot now be permitted to raise any grievance after a period of almost 15 years. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on ground of the said inordinate delay also. 19. No case for interference is made out and the writ petition is hence, dismissed. 20. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.