1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9408/2002 Neena Gupta and anr. vs State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Order : 16.1.2009 Present HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Mukesh Agrawal, for the petitioners. Mr.Hemant Gupta for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- 1.By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the benefit of revision of pay scale from April,1998 to August,1998 during which period the petitioners worked on the post of Lecturers in the respondents' college. 2.It was contended that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Lecturer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 6.10.1997 issued by the respondents. Their appointment was made vide order dated 16- 19/11/1997 in which a condition was imposed that appointment would be only for a period upto 31.3.1998 or till the availability of duly selected candidates whichever is 2 earlier. This condition was challenged by filing a writ petition before this court. This court granted interim stay order in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from terminating their services. The writ petition was however ultimately dismissed on 29.8.1998. Subsequently, the pay scale of the post of Lecturer was revised/ replaced with retrospective effect i.e 1.1.1996. It was argued that since the petitioners were in service during the aforesaid period for which the pay scale has been revised for the aforesaid post, the respondents may be directed to pay the difference of the salary which they would have received but for their termination. It was also contended that benefit of leave encashment may also be granted for the aforesaid period. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that eventually, the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed, therefore, no further benefits should be granted to the petitioners. It was contended that the court in operating part of the judgment, made it clear that whatever amount has been paid pursuant to the interim order, 3 shall not be recovered from them. Revision of pay scale retrospectively would be available only to those who are actually in service as on the date it was notified. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioners has rejoined and submitted that the respondents stated in affidavit that their cases have been referred for to the Government for aforesaid payment. 5.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners, this court also by the self same order vacated the interim-order. It was further clarified that recovery of salary would not be made from the petitioners who have continued their services beyond the period of March 31,1998 by the interim order of this court. Obviously, the petitioners were not in service when the pay scales were revised/ replaced. They cannot claim parity to those persons who were actually in service of the respondents. Since the writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that they were not continued in service, the benefit whatsoever received by them may not be recovered as per observations made while dismissing the writ petition. 4 6.I find no ground to issue a writ of mandmus as prayed for in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq),J om