ORDER : 1. The petitioners were appointed as Drivers on ad hoc basis under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rule, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules of 2002’) in the year 2007, after undergoing the selection process. The ad hoc period was extended from time to time. In the meanwhile, the respondent - High Court vide order dated 17.07.2009 while dealing with the similar situated Class 4 th employees, who were appointed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002, regularized their ad hoc services from the date of their initial appointment. The respondent-High Court on 22.06.2013, regularized the present petitioners as drivers, who were appointed on ad hoc basis between 27.10.2007 and 03.09.2011, after putting them to the screening committee for regularizing their services from the date of such order. 2. In the meanwhile, certain other 43 employees appointed between 2007 to 2011 as the petitioner, who were basically Class 4 th employees appointed on ad hoc basis under the similar Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 and were regularized from the initial date of their appointment, were sought to be reversed in timeline imparting benefit of regularization to be given from the date of the order of regularization of their services reducing the benefit from the actual date of appointment. The order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1958/2016 (Sohan Kapur & Ors. Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan) , which was allowed vide order dated 08.03.2019 and the order of revision of regularization from the initial date of appointment to the later date of passing the order was interfered and quashed. The order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court is reproduced as follows :- This writ petition has been filed to seek regularisation of services from the date of initial appointment and, for it, to suitably modify the order dated 22.6.2013 (Annexure-1), whereby, services of the petitioners were regularised from the date of the order. The consequential prayer is to give benefit of seniority apart from other benefits. It is stated that the petitioners were initially appointed on urgent temporary basis under rule 16 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules of 2002’). The order, however, shows appointment to be on ad hoc basis. The consequential prayer is to give benefit of seniority apart from other benefits. It is stated that the petitioners were initially appointed on urgent temporary basis under rule 16 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules of 2002’). The order, however, shows appointment to be on ad hoc basis. The services of the petitioners were then regularised vide order dated 22.6.2013 from the date of the said order. It was after screening of the candidates by the Screening Committee in consonance to the Rules of 2002. The services were regularised after initial appointment of the petitioners between the year 2009 till 2011 thus those appointed in the year 2011 could get benefit of regularisation within two years, whereas, those appointed in the year 2009 could get benefit of regularisation after four years. The main grievance of the petitioners is in regard to discriminatory treatment with those appointed along with the petitioners and subsequently. They have been given benefit of regular pay scale by regularising their services from the initial date of appointment. A reference of the order passed for it on 17.4.2013 (Annexure-4) has been given. Therein, appointment of the employees named therein was also made under rule 16 of the Rules of 2002. The date of appointment has also been given which is from January, 2009 till April, 2009. Their services said to have been regularised vide order dated 17.7.2007. It is with effect from their date of appointment. The services of those appointed in the year 2009 could not have otherwise been regularised by the order dated 17.7.2007 passed almost two years prior to their appointment. The regularisation of their services is from the date of appointment and not from the date of passing of the order thus discrimination has been caused between similarly situated employees. The prayer is accordingly to treat similarly placed employees at par to avoid violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the Rajasthan High Court has contested the writ petition. It is stated that petitioners were not appointed as per the procedure provided under the rules. They were appointed under rule 16 of the Rules of 2002, where the procedure given for regular appointment is not followed. Learned counsel for the Rajasthan High Court has contested the writ petition. It is stated that petitioners were not appointed as per the procedure provided under the rules. They were appointed under rule 16 of the Rules of 2002, where the procedure given for regular appointment is not followed. In view of the above, they were not entitled to seek regularisation of their services from the date of their initial appointment, rather, it can be from the date of the order. A reference of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Renu & ors versus District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi & anr”, AIR 2014 SC 2175 has been given. Therein, Apex Court has directed to fill the post of Class IV employees strictly in accordance to the rules. In view of the above, prayer made by the petitioners may not be accepted even if, inadvertently, others were given benefit of regularisation from the date of appointment or on completion of the period of probation of two years. The illegality committed by the High Court may not be perpetuated. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the writ petition. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The petitioners were initially appointed on ad hoc basis under rule 16 of the Rules of 2002. Rule 16 permits appointment on urgent temporary basis. It can be when there exist vacant post but is not filed by regular mode. The respondent has admitted that the appointment of the petitioners was made against existing vacant posts thus is to be considered to be substantive appointment thought made on urgent temporary basis. The respondent, took a decision to send the case of the petitioners for screening for the purpose of regularisation of service. On the recommendations of the Screening Committee, services of the petitioners were regularised by the order dated 22.6.2013. The benefit of regularisation apart from consequential benefits have been given from the date of the order. The grievance of the petitioners is that while they have been given benefit of regular appointment from the date of the order passed on 22.6.2013, others who were appointed along with the petitioners or even subsequent to them have been extended benefit of regularisation from the date of appointment with consequential benefits. The grievance of the petitioners is that while they have been given benefit of regular appointment from the date of the order passed on 22.6.2013, others who were appointed along with the petitioners or even subsequent to them have been extended benefit of regularisation from the date of appointment with consequential benefits. In the rejoinder, reference of the appointment order issued on 26.3.2009 for Mr Praveen Kumar has been given. He has also been appointed in the similar manner as the petitioners. His services were regularised from the date of appointment vide order dated 17.4.2013 at annexure 4. The respondents have admitted discrimination in its act but it is with the prayer not to perpetuate the illegality. In view of admission about discrimination between similarly placed employees, question would be as to whether direction prayed for by the petitioners would perpetuate the illegality. We find that initial appointment of the petitioners was against vacant posts and in consonance to the Rules of 2002 and not in violation thereof. It may be that initial appointment of the petitioners was on urgent temporary basis though referred to be on ad hoc basis. If one set of employees has been extended benefit of regularisation from the date of appointment and others from the date of the order passed after four years of initial appointment, thus respondents have caused discrimination violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. If we ignore the aforesaid, it would be going against the spirit of the Constitution while action of the respondent- High Court to regularise services of one set of employees from the date of appointment cannot be said to be illegal. The argument about illegality in the action of the High Court has been raised in reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Renu & ors (supra), which was passed by the Apex Court in the February, 2014, whereas, order of regularisation of the employees was passed in the year 2013. It is settled law that judgment of the Apex Court applies prospectively and otherwise if it is to be applied to the facts of the case, respondent High Court should have withdrawn the order passed in favour of others at annexure-4. It has not been done despite a grievance. The matter was submitted to the Committee but the issue of discrimination has been ignored. It has not been done despite a grievance. The matter was submitted to the Committee but the issue of discrimination has been ignored. The petitioners were also appointed under rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 so as other set of employees who have been extended benefit of regularisation from the date of initial appointment. Accordingly, we find discrimination in the action of the respondent High Court thus interference is caused in the order dated 22.6.2013 only in regard to the date of regularisation of the petitioner. The respondent is directed to extend benefit to the petitioners as was given to similarly placed employees and, more specifically, as given in annexure-4 dated 17.4.2013. Since consequential benefits were given to the employees named in annexure-4, similar benefits would be extended to the petitioners also. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.” 3. The above order dated 08.03.2019 was challenged by the respondent - High Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.05.2022 while deciding Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.15579/2019 (High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan through Registrar General Vs. Sohan Kapur & Ors.) directed that all the 43 employees, who were regularized from the initial date of appointment and their regularization was sought to be regularized from the date of the order of regularization, was non sustainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court is of the considered view that the benefit of regularization from the initial date of the appointment of the respondents therein and all the 43 similarly situated employees whose names were mentioned in the order dated 20.09.2019 should not be disturbed. The Hon’ble Apex Court further said that the Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 was to be scrupulously followed in the regularization of the service of the ad hoc basis employees in the future. 4. Learned counsel Ms. Abhilasha Bora appearing for the respondent–High Court has tried to distinguish the said relief granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the ground that the Hon’ble Apex Court itself had directed that the Rule 16 of the 2002 shall be scrupulously followed for the purpose of regularization of the services of ad hoc employees in future. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Abhilasha Bora appearing for the respondent–High Court has tried to distinguish the said relief granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the ground that the Hon’ble Apex Court itself had directed that the Rule 16 of the 2002 shall be scrupulously followed for the purpose of regularization of the services of ad hoc employees in future. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari appearing for the petitioners makes a limited submission that it is not a case of applicability of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002; rather, it is a case of similarly situated employees i.e. 43 persons from the Class 4 th category and the present petitioners from the Driver category, who were initially appointed between 27.10.2007 and 03.09.2011, which was a common period to both the categories. He further submits that the appointments of employees of both the categories were made under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002. He further submits that their regularization was done in 2013 and on the same pedestal from the date of regularization. He further submits that this is not a question of future ramification of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 as both categories were appointed in same timeline but rather in accordance with the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Appex Court in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan through Registrar General Vs. Sohan Kapur & Ors. (supra), wherein the regularization of the respondents therein was allowed from the date of their initial appointment. It is, thus, submitted that the same timeline employees, may be of different categories, appointed under the same rule and having undergone the same process of regularization, are required to be given the same benefit from the date of original appointment. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent – High Court has also pointed out the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Bhavesh Paliwal & Ors. Vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14555/2023) whereby the claim for parity with the 43 employees protected by the Hon’ble Apex Court, was dismissed. The order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court is reproduced as follows :- “Heard on admission. Vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14555/2023) whereby the claim for parity with the 43 employees protected by the Hon’ble Apex Court, was dismissed. The order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court is reproduced as follows :- “Heard on admission. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as benefit of regularisation from the date of appointment was granted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Kapur and Others Versus High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1958/2016, decided on 08.03.2019 , the petitioners are also entitled to such benefit because they are also ad hoc appointees, who were appointed between the period from 2012 to 2014 which culminated in their regularisation in services vide order dated 07.03.2022. Rule 16 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Services Rules, 2002 hereinafter referred to as (‘the Rules of 2002’), which is applicable in the case is clear and reads as under:- “16. Urgent Temporary Appointments. - (1) A vacant post in the service which cannot be filled in immediately either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by transfer from subordinate courts or from offices of Government under the Rules may be filled in by the Appointing Authority by appointing in an officiating capacity thereto a member of service eligible for appointment to the post by promotion or by appointing temporarily thereto a person eligible for direct recruitment to the post, where such direct recruitment has been provided under the provisions of these Rules, until a regular appointment is made in accordance with these Rules. (2) The post in service on which a person is appointed under Sub-rule (1) shall be filled in by a regular appointment as soon as possible. (3) A person appointed under Sub-rule (1) shall not be regarded as a probationer holding the post nor such appointment shall confer upon him any right to claim appointment to such post on regular basis unless he is selected for the regular appointment under these Rules.” The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Versus Sohan Kapur & Others in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15579/2019, decided on 04.05.2022 , did not disturb the regularisation orders, which were passed earlier in respect of 43 employees. 15579/2019, decided on 04.05.2022 , did not disturb the regularisation orders, which were passed earlier in respect of 43 employees. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly stated that Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 are required to be scrupulously followed in regularisation of the services of ad hoc employees in future. In view of the aforesaid declaration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners cannot claim parity with those 43 employees, who were protected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the facts of that case. As directing regularisation contrary to the provision of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 would amount to issuing writ of mandamus contrary to the provisions of law, relief cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has rightly applied the precedent law of the Hon’ble Apex Court because no future relaxation in Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 was to be provided. It is also submitted that in the present case, since the pedestal of the present petitioners on the same ground as in the case of Sohan Kapur (supra) because their appointments were also made on ad hoc basis between 27.10.2007 and 03.09.2011, therefore, at par with the case of Sohan Kapur (supra) while operating Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002. It is, therefore, prayed that the parity with the case of Sohan Kapur (supra) could be drawn in the present case, but not with the case of Bhavesh Paliwal (supra). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. This Court finds strength in the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari appearing for the petitioners that the law laid down in the case of Bhavesh Paliwal (supra) is for ad hoc recruited under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 between 2012 and 2014; the candidates involved gets ousted by the observation in Sohan Kapur (supra) that the same shall not operate for the future employees; whereas the present set of employees i.e. petitioners and Sohan Kapur & Ors. were recruited on ad hoc basis under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 between 27.10.2007 and 03.09.2011 and, thus, their case falls within the same time bracket in exactly the same as the case of Sohan Kapur (supra) and 43 other employees and does not get ousted by their condition of benefit not operating in future. 10. This Court finds that when there are two set of employees of similar categories, appointed after operation of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 and regularized from the initial date of appointment, then Article 14 of the Constitution of India has to be operated in terms of Sohan Kapur (supra). 11. The order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Sohan Kapur (supra) as well as upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.05.2022 in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan through Registrar General Vs. Sohan Kapur & Ors. (supra), clearly laid down a mandate before this Court to operate same set of parameters for the employees, who have been selected within similar categories i.e. Class 4 th employees as well as the present petitioners i.e. Driver and regularized from the initial date of appointments. Thus, it is clear that the present set of employees i.e. petitioner-Drivers and Sohan Kapur (supra)and 43 other employees were regularized from 2013 onwords, thus, it is not in dispute that the regularization has to be considered, but the dispute is very limited as to whether the regularization should be made at par with the case of Sohan Kapur (supra) or not, because there is no distinction of the time bracket between both the set of employees and rest of the conditions which includes Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002, the relief remains the same for them. 12. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondent – High Court is directed to regularize the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and give them notional benefits from that date. 13. It is further made clear that the present order is operating only for a particular time bracket at par with the case of Sohan Kapur (supra) and shall not operate beyond that because the Hon’ble Apex Court itself in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan through Registrar General Vs. 13. It is further made clear that the present order is operating only for a particular time bracket at par with the case of Sohan Kapur (supra) and shall not operate beyond that because the Hon’ble Apex Court itself in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan through Registrar General Vs. Sohan Kapur & Ors. (supra) has directed that the judgment is only for the similarly situated employees and shall not operate for future. These both set of employees were appointed in the same time bracket (2007-2011) and were appointed under the same Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 and this do not fall in the realm of future non-application of Sohan Kapur (supra). 14. Stay petition is disposed of.