ORDER : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners’ writ petition has been decided by this Court while directing the respondents to consider their representation in light of Yogesh Kumar Pareek vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3534/2009 vide order dated 20.01.2014, yet the respondents have arbitrarily rejected their representation by way of separate orders dated 08.11.2021 and 26.04.2022, on the very same reason, which did not find favour of Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek (supra). 2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to distinguish petitioners’ case from that of Yogesh Kumar Pareek (supra). 3. In the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek, this Court had held thus :- “Petitioner is aggrieved by denial of salary of summer vacation and shifting of date of increment and other benefits. It is stated that petitioner was appointed on regular basis on the post of Teacher vide order dated 24.01.1992. After joining on 28.01.1992, petitioner was entitled for benefit of service and salary for summer vacation. Respondents denied aforesaid benefit and increment was shifted to the month of March despite of joining of petitioner in the month of January. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to pay salary of summer vacation and also the date of increment be made to January, 1993. The officer-in-charge of the respondents could not justify the action of the respondents, inasmuch as Circular dated 28.07.2003 clarified that if employee has been appointed on regular basis on probation then he would be entitled for salary of summer vacation even if appointment is after 31st December. No justification is given by the respondents for denial of benefit of increment from January other than erroneously correlating it with the benefit of selection scale and thereby, shifting it by 48 days. I find the action of respondents is illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of salary of summer vacation as he is covered by the Circular. The petitioner should be given increment counting his service from the dateof joining and not by shifting it to the month of March. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and consequential benefit would be given to the petitioner as referred above. The petitioner should be given increment counting his service from the dateof joining and not by shifting it to the month of March. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and consequential benefit would be given to the petitioner as referred above. He would be entitled to other benefits based on appointment order dated 24.01.1992 and his joining on 28.01.1992, thus benefit of selection scale would also be determined. This also disposes of stay application.” 4. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay due salary to the petitioners for the period of summer vacation. 5. Each of the petitioners shall file a separate representation (along with web-copy of the order instant) for the period during which they have been deprived of their salary for the summer vacation, while mentioning therein the due amount. Such representation(s) shall be considered by the competent authority of the State and requisite amount shall be determined and paid within a period of six months today.