1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2015/1993. : : Dr.Mahendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. University of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 13.10.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.S.P.Sharma for the petitioners. Mr.R.A.Katta for the respondent. This writ petition was filed jointly by as many as 19 petitioners, who had been working as Lecturers (Assistant Professors) on temporary basis with the respondent- University in the Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science for last several years. The petitioners prayed that the respondents be directed to regularise their services from the date of their initial appointment with consequential benefits as granted to regularly selected Assistant Professors under the University Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974. Shri S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has during the course of arguments produced for perusal of the Court copy of the order dated 5.8.2008 passed by the respondent-University, which is taken on record. 2 A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the services of all adhoc Assistant Professors working in the respondent-University were regularised on recommendations of the Screening Committee constituted as per provision of Clause-4 of Rajasthan University Teachers (Absorption of Adhoc Teachers) Ordinance No.3/2008 and they were absorbed and substantively appointed as Assistant Professors with effect from the date of their initial appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that one of the conditions of the said order has deprived the petitioners of any financial benefits prior to 5.8.2008 and also of consequential promotion, which they may be entitled to because of their being made permanent from the date of their appointment. This condition according to him is arbitrary and unreasonable because the petitioners have been deprived of the benefits of career advanced scheme and such other benefits as were granted to the Assistant Professors regularly selected under the aforesaid Act of 1974. I am afraid, the validity or correctness or otherwise of the order aforesaid, which while regularising the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial appointment has denied consequential benefits flowing 3 therefrom cannot be adjudged in the present writ petition. Although the grievance raised in the present writ petition has been substantially remedied by the respondents but the order dated 5.8.2008 has given rise to a fresh cause of action. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to separately challenge this order so as to question the correctness of that part of the order as referred to above in a properly constituted fresh writ petition on account of new cause of action having arise to them. In the result this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that two of the petitioners namely; petitioner No.13 Dr.(Mrs.) Vijay Kabra and No.19 Dr. (Mrs.) Prem Lata Agrawal Rastogi could not be granted the benefit of regularization because by the time the order dated 5.8.2008 was passed, they already stood retired. It is contended that liberty may be reserved for them also to approach this Court in a fresh petition for appropriate relief. That liberty is also granted. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.8.