ABHAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter has been taken up on the second stay application moved by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the second stay petition are touching upon the merits of the case, and the matter has been heard at length and it was thought proper to hear the arguments finally on the writ petition itself instead of keeping it pending as the writ petition pertains to the year 1998.

(2.) THE first contention which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no prescription of different pay scales in the Rules. Second argument is that the impugned order has been passed retrospectively to the disadvantage of the petitioner particularly when the Rules do not permit retrospective effect to the matter.

(3.) I am also fortified in my observations from the view taken by the Apex Court in the matter of L. N. Kesri vs. Union of India (3) and also in Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India (4 ).