ORDER : 1. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5037/2018, this Court, while reserving the matter for order on 06.11.2025, also directed that the case be tagged along with the reserved files of S.B. CWP Nos. 12134/2021 and 3961/2020, as the issues involved therein are similar in nature. It is noted that the said two matters were reserved for orders on 04.11.2025. Grievance and Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5037/2018 - 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 31.12.2003 (Annex.3) to the extent it regularizes their services w.e.f. 02.07.2003 and seek a direction to the respondents to regularize them from the date of their initial entry in service with all consequential benefits including proper pay fixation, seniority and promotional benefits. The petitioners further pray for quashing of the impugned order (Annex.3) denying them the benefit of first selection grade from the date of completion of 9 years of service reckoned from their respective dates of initial appointment on the post of Junior Engineer, and for issuance of directions to grant such selection grades as and when due, together with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accrual till actual payment. 3. The facts of the present writ petition, is that the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil)–Diploma Holders on temporary ad-hoc basis for three months, or till regularly selected candidates became available under the Rajasthan Subordinate Technical (Public Health & Engineering Department) Rules, 1967 (in short “the 1967 rules”), in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600/- vide orders placing them under the Chief Engineer, District Circle, Jodhpur (Annexure-2). Although initially appointed for three months, their services were extended from time to time and they continued uninterruptedly on vacant posts under the 1967 Rules, receiving annual grade increments, thereby functioning in practice as regularly appointed employees. The petitioners assert that they performed duties sincerely and without complaint. A Screening Committee was later constituted under Rule 24 of the 1967 Rules for considering regularization of Junior Engineers working on ad-hoc/temporary/urgent basis as on 31.03.1999, which held its meeting on 23.10.2003 and recommended eligible cases; pursuant thereto, the Chief Engineer (Rural), PHED, Jaipur issued an order dated 31.12.2003 regularizing petitioners’ services as Junior Engineer (Civil)–Diploma Holders w.e.f. 02.07.2003, where their names appeared at Serial Nos. 13 and 21 (Annexure-3). 4. 13 and 21 (Annexure-3). 4. The petitioners contended that, in view of settled law that once appointment is made according to rules, benefits must flow from the date of initial appointment, their regularization ought to have been given effect from their original entry in service in 1997, but they did not immediately approach the Court since the issue was already sub judice in other identical matters. Meanwhile, employees’ associations had raised grievances concerning stagnation; the State issued notification dated 25.01.1992 providing selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, followed by clarifications dated 21.10.1993 (Annexure-5), 19.05.1997 (Annexure-6) and 07.08.1998 (Annexure-7) specifying that service for Junior Engineers was to be counted from the date of first appointment. Reliance is also placed on the case of Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt (SBCWP No. 8358/2009 & 4306/2011) wherein the learned Single Judge held that once regularization is granted, benefits must relate back to initial entry in service; the said view was upheld by the Division Bench in DBCSA Nos. 909/2011 & 927/2011 and further affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 33784- 33785/2011 dismissed on 20.07.2012. Another similar issue concerning counting of ad-hoc service for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme was decided in Dr. Suresh Chand Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan, where the Single Bench judgment dated 14.09.1994 was affirmed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1289/1997 and later upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 469/2007 vide order dated 10.03.2011, holding exclusion of such service to be unjustified. 5. Returning to the present case, the petitioners submit that having completed 9 years of service from their respective dates of initial appointment in 1997 (Annexure-2), and their appointments having been made under the 1967 Rules, they were entitled to first selection grade from the date of initial appointment, but the respondents instead granted the benefit from 02.07.2012 by taking regularization date (02.07.2003) as the starting point, as per orders dated 28.08.2014 and 11.12.2014 (Annexure-8), resulting in recurring financial loss and affecting seniority. Legal notice was served but no reply was furnished (Annexure-9). 6. Feeling aggrieved by the regularization order dated 31.12.2003 granting effect only from 02.07.2003 and by the grant of first selection grade from the date of regularization instead of initial appointment, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. Legal notice was served but no reply was furnished (Annexure-9). 6. Feeling aggrieved by the regularization order dated 31.12.2003 granting effect only from 02.07.2003 and by the grant of first selection grade from the date of regularization instead of initial appointment, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. Grievance and Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12134/2021 - 7. By way of filing this civil writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that the Order dated 20.04.2021 (Annex.25) passed by the Department of Finance be declared illegal and quashed; that the subsequent orders dated 02.06.2021 (Annex.26) and 09.07.2021 (Annex.27) passed by respondent No.3 also be declared illegal and set aside; that the respondents be directed to grant the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) to the petitioners on completion of 30 years of regular service by duly reckoning the service rendered on adhoc basis prior to regular appointment in terms of the exception dated 21.10.1993 (Annex.04) inserted in Para-3 of the notification dated 25.01.1992 (Annex.03), along with all consequential benefits; and that the respondents further be directed to pay interest @18% per annum for the delayed fixation of selection scale/ACP and the arrears arising therefrom. 8. 8. That the Petitioners entered into the services of the respondent department in the year 1987 on the post of Junior Engineer on an ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.1160-2360, pursuant to their appointment orders; that various orders came to be passed from time to time regarding counting of their ad-hoc service for grant of Selection Grade/ACP benefits; that an order dated 30.03.2021 was issued by the Secretary, Department of Deputy Finance (Budget) stating inter alia that in pursuance of the order dated 24.12.2020, the benefit of ACP to Junior Engineers appointed on ad-hoc basis up to 28.02.1997 shall be allowed by computing their ad-hoc services, however actual financial benefit would be granted only from the date of regularization and benefits for the ad-hoc period shall be only notional (Annexure-24); that thereafter another order dated 20.04.2021 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Finance (Budget) withdrawing the earlier orders dated 24.12.2020 (ID No.102005252) and 30.03.2021 (ID No.102101467) in view of the opinion of the Advocate General and earlier decisions in the cases of Jagdish Narayan Chaturvedi and Surendra Mohnot (Annexure-25); that following issuance of the order dated 20.04.2021, the office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources, Jaipur passed a consequential order dated 02.06.2021 withdrawing the earlier orders issued in compliance of orders dated 24.12.2020 and 30.03.2021 (Annexure-26); that subsequently another order dated 09.07.2021 was issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, whereby the ACP/Selection Scale earlier granted to the petitioners and other similarly situated employees by computing their ad-hoc services was withdrawn (Annexure-27); and that the petitioners, being aggrieved of the orders dated 20.04.2021 and 02.06.2021 and the denial of Selection Grade/ACP benefits from the date of their initial appointment on the post of Junior Engineer, have preferred the present petition. Grievance and Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3961/2020- 9. By way of filing this civil writ petition, the petitioner prays that the Letter/Communication dated 03.09.2019 (Annex.13) issued by respondent No.4, along with the decision/comment of the Department of Finance whereby the benefit of ACP/3rd ACP has been denied by excluding the period of adhoc service rendered by the petitioner/JEns prior to their regular appointment, may be declared illegal and consequently quashed and set aside. The respondents may further be directed to grant the benefit of ACP/3rd ACP to the petitioner by duly reckoning the entire period of adhoc service rendered before regular appointment, with all consequential benefits. The respondents may also be directed to pay interest @18% per annum for the delayed fixation of 3rd ACP and consequential arrears. 10. The breif facts of the present case are that the petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent department, last served as Assistant Engineer at Canal Sub-division- Superannuation III, Canal Division-I, Bisalpur Project, District Tonk, and after retirement has settled at Jodhpur at the address mentioned in the cause title; the petitioner initially entered the services of the respondent department in the year 1987 on the post of Junior Engineer on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1160-2360 pursuant to appointment order dated 21.09.1987, and after rendering more than ten years of uninterrupted service, his case was placed before the Screening Committee constituted in 1998, which issued order dated 14.05.1998 under Rule 6(9) of the Rules 1967, regularizing his services w.e.f. 28.07.1997 and placing his name at Sr. 1160-2360 pursuant to appointment order dated 21.09.1987, and after rendering more than ten years of uninterrupted service, his case was placed before the Screening Committee constituted in 1998, which issued order dated 14.05.1998 under Rule 6(9) of the Rules 1967, regularizing his services w.e.f. 28.07.1997 and placing his name at Sr. No. 58 in order of seniority according to date of joining on ad-hoc basis; that in view of acute stagnation in promotions in Class-IV/Ministerial/Subordinate Services, the State Government introduced a scheme for grant of selection scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service vide order dated 25.01.1992, followed by an exception added on 21.10.1993 clarifying that selection grades for Junior Engineers would be admissible on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of continuous service on the post of Junior Engineer, which was further clarified by the Finance Department vide letter dated 19.05.1997 addressed to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur, reiterating that service for Junior Engineers shall be counted from the date of their first appointment; that from a combined reading of the orders dated 21.10.1993 and 19.05.1997 it becomes clear that while Junior Engineers are entitled to counting of service from their first appointment on the post, employees of other services continue to be governed by Para 3 of the order dated 25.01.1992; that the petitioner became eligible for first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service w.e.f. 03.10.1996 and for second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service w.e.f. 03.10.2005, but the selection grades were not granted, compelling him to file Appeal No. 5/2017 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur; that several similarly situated employees also approached this Court, including in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16252/2018 (Gopi Ram Marwal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein the Court on 23.10.2018 held that the controversy was covered by the earlier judgment in Bhiya Ram Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan decided on 14.02.2017, noting that the State’s appeal had already been dismissed on 04.07.2018, and accordingly extended the same benefit to the petitioners; that meanwhile, the State notified the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 introducing the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme in lieu of selection grades, providing for financial up-gradation on completion of 10 years’ continuous service in the same grade pay, later amended on 06.10.2008 by substituting “10 years” with “9 years” and inserting sub- rules clarifying eligibility for ACP in cases where selection grades or promotions had been previously granted; that thereafter, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, issued order dated 28.11.2018 deciding that in cases where Junior Engineers appointed on ad-hoc basis between 01.09.1987 to 28.02.1997 had completed 9 years of ad-hoc service before 17.02.1998, such ad-hoc service would be countable for selection grade, followed by another order dated 07.06.2019 granting the petitioner selection grades of 9 and 18 years w.e.f. 04.10.1996 and 04.10.2005 respectively; that the petitioner expected that in view of the above orders and judgments, he would receive the benefits of 9, 18 and 27 years’ selection grades by counting his ad- hoc service, but was then informed that the Finance Department had taken a decision not to count ad-hoc service for grant of 3rd ACP under the revised pay rules of 2008, as ACP benefits were admissible only after regular appointment; that the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, accordingly issued letter dated 03.09.2019 directing amendment of cases where ACP had been granted by counting ad-hoc service, enclosing Finance Department’s comment dated 02.09.2019 reiterating that ACP cannot be granted by taking into account ad-hoc service prior to regular appointment; that in consequence, the petitioner will not be granted ACP/3rd ACP by counting his ad-hoc service, which the petitioner alleges to be illegal, arbitrary, contrary to earlier notifications and inconsistent with judgments passed by this Court in favour of similarly situated Junior Engineers; and that being aggrieved by the continued delay and denial of selection grades and ACP benefits from the date of his initial appointment, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 11. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 12. 11. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 12. Upon consideration of the pleadings and submissions in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5037/2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12134/2021 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3961/2020, the following common question of law arise for adjudication: Whether the period of service rendered by the petitioners as Junior Engineers on ad-hoc/temporary basis prior to their regular appointment is required to be counted as qualifying service from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of grant of Selection Grades (9, 18, 27 years) and ACP/3rd ACP benefits, in view of the applicable Government circulars and settled judicial precedents? 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in all three writ petitions were initially appointed as Junior Engineers on ad-hoc basis against sanctioned posts, under the respective statutory service rules of the Engineering Subordinate Services. Their appointments, though described as temporary/ad-hoc, were made under the Rules, and their services continued uninterruptedly for long periods. They were granted annual grade increments and were subjected to the same supervisory control and responsibilities as regularly appointed JEs. 14. The Government Order dated 25.01.1992 introduced the scheme of Selection Grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The subsequent clarification dated 21.10.1993 carved out a specific exception for Junior Engineers, providing that their service shall be counted from the date of first appointment. This was reiterated by the Finance Department letter dated 19.05.1997, leaving no ambiguity that the service of JEs, whether ad-hoc or regular, shall be counted from their initial entry in service. 15. This Court has, on multiple occasions, interpreted the 1992 Scheme and the 1993 & 1997 clarifications. In Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt (SBCWP No. 8358/2009 & 4306/2011), the learned Single Judge held that once an employee is regularized, the benefits must relate back to the initial date of appointment. The judgment was upheld by the Division Bench and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions on 20.07.2012. Similar recognition of past service for financial progression is found in Dr. Suresh Chand Agarwal, where exclusion of ad- hoc service was held unjustified, and the judgment attained finality up to the Supreme Court. 16. The judgment was upheld by the Division Bench and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions on 20.07.2012. Similar recognition of past service for financial progression is found in Dr. Suresh Chand Agarwal, where exclusion of ad- hoc service was held unjustified, and the judgment attained finality up to the Supreme Court. 16. In several other matters relating to similarly placed Junior Engineers such as Bhiya Ram Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan decided on 14.02.2017, Gopi Ram Marwal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 23.10.2018 Gopi Ram Marwal, and connected litigation this Court has consistently held that service rendered on ad-hoc basis prior to regularization must be counted for Selection Grades and financial upgradation, especially where such service was rendered without break and under the governing Rules. 17. The respondents, however, have taken a contrary view in the impugned orders dated 20.04.2021, 02.06.2021, 09.07.2021 and communication dated 03.09.2019, holding that ad-hoc service cannot be counted for ACP/3rd ACP. Such withdrawal of benefits is unsupported by any statutory amendment, and is contrary to the Government’s own exception in favour of Junior Engineers, as well as binding judicial precedents. 18. This Court finds no justification for adopting different criteria at different stages, counting ad-hoc service for Selection Grades, but denying the same for ACP/3rd ACP— when the underlying principle under the 1992 Scheme, the 1993 exception, and subsequent ACP schemes remains that continuous service rendered on the same post must be counted. 19. The impugned orders are therefore unsustainable, being contrary to earlier circulars, executive instructions, and settled law laid down by this Court and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioners are entitled to have their service counted from their initial date of appointment for purposes of Selection Grades/ACP/3rd ACP, with consequential benefits. Operative Directions 20. The impugned orders dated 31.12.2003 (to the extent challenged), 20.04.2021, 02.06.2021, 09.07.2021, and communication dated 03.09.2019, as well as all consequential withdrawal orders, are hereby quashed and set aside. 21. The respondents are directed to count the ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioners from their respective dates of initial appointment on the post of Junior Engineer for the purposes of: Selection Grades of 9, 18 and 27 years, and ACP/3rd ACP benefits under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and amendments thereto. 22. 21. The respondents are directed to count the ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioners from their respective dates of initial appointment on the post of Junior Engineer for the purposes of: Selection Grades of 9, 18 and 27 years, and ACP/3rd ACP benefits under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and amendments thereto. 22. The respondents shall accordingly re-fix the pay, restore/grant the financial upgradations, and release the consequential arrears, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 23. Arrears shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, to be calculated from the date the benefit became due till the date of actual payment. 24. All three writ petitions stand allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.