SBCWP409/1993 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.409/1993 Jai Niwas Lakhotia Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 19.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Vinod Goyal for Shri Virendra Lodha, Counsel for petitioner Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- This writ petition was filed by petitioner Jai Niwas Lakhotia way back in the year 1993 interalia with prayer that respondents be directed to grant him pay scale No.10 with effect from 01.09.1981 instead of 01.02.1985, and further that fixing of date 01.02.1985 from which the Notification relating to Scale No.10 was given effect to, be declared as discriminatory in character and unconstitutional as the same being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Shri Vinod Goyal, brief holder of Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that cut off date i.e. 01.02.1985 SBCWP409/1993 // 2 // has already been declared to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gopal Dass Vs. State of Rajasthan – 1981 (1) RLW 200. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that against aforesaid DB judgment of this Court, the respondents have filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in which interim order was passed thereby staying operation of the said DB judgment. Either of the learned counsel is not in a position to inform the court as to the final out come of the Special Leave Petition. This writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents against the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner herein would be entitled to the same benefits as were granted to petitioners by said judgment of this Court in Gopal Dass's case (Supra). It is further made clear that if eventually the same has been allowed, the petitioner would not be entitled SBCWP409/1993 // 3 // to claim any such benefit. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a suitable representation before the respondents in this respect, which shall be considered and decided accordingly within a period of three months from the date a copy of this judgment is produced before them by the petitioner. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//