1. - Out of these four writ petitions, petitioners Laxman Singh Rana and Hari Singh Yadav, who were both working as Upper Division Clerk (for short 'UDC') with Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu, have each filed two petitions. They are aggrieved by common order passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu, dated 06.05.1998 by which they have been compulsorily retired from services. Petitioner Laxman Singh Rana has challenged validity of order in Writ Petition No. 2526/1998 and petitioner Hari Singh Yadav in Writ Petition No. 2674/1998.

2. Basic foundation of aforesaid order of compulsory retirement in the case of petitioner Laxman Singh Rana is order dated 29.04.1998 by which disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'CCA Rules') was imposed upon him, which he has separately challenged in Writ Petition No. 2574/1998.

3. Writ Petition No. 2675/ 1998 has been filed by petitioner Hari Singh challenging validity of order dated 30.04.1998 vide which Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu, reopened an already closed matter and held that regularisation of period of his suspension from 17.10.1977 to 20.10.1981 by Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, was illegal and that petitioner Hari Singh Yadav could not be held entitled to receive entire salary for the afore-mentioned period and, therefore, in future he shall not be entitled to any increment and pay fixation etc. till sanction for regularisation of aforesaid period of suspension is not granted by the State Government.

4. Since both petitioners have simultaneously filed writ petition making allegations of mala fides against respondent Shri Gautam Mukherjee, the then Chief Executive Officer and have asserted that they were victimised at his hands only because they obeyed instructions of the then Zila Pramukh and there was a feud between the then Zila Pramukh and Chief Executive Officer. This was not taken kindly by latter. In order to teach a lesson to petitioner, the then Chief Executive Officer hurriedly passed impugned order in utter breach of relevant provisions of law and for ulterior motives and mala fides. Considering that petitions are founded on identical facts and orders of penalty and compulsory retirement are assailed raising similar arguments, at these four petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

5. Petitioner Laxman Singh Rana was appointed on post of Lower Division Clerk in office of Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu, on 13.07.1964; he was confirmed as LDC by order dated 27.10.1969 he was then promoted to the post of UDC on 17.01.1994. Respondents granted him third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service in lieu of promotion by order dated 05.03.1994, which was made effective from 25.01.1992 when Government promulgated such scheme. Similarly, petitioner Hari Singh was appointed as LDC in Zila Parishad by order dated 06.05.1965 and was confirmed as such by order dated 21.10.1981 with effect from 06.05.1967; he was promoted LDC by order dated 01.01.1994; he was also granted second selection scale on completion of 18 years of service vide order dated 23.06.1992 and thereafter third selection scale was also given to him on completion of 27 years of service by order dated 25.06.1992. He was placed under suspension as far back as on 17.10.1977 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings but eventually the disciplinary authority by order dated 20.10.1981 reinstated him in service. Charge-sheet dated 19.10.1977 was served upon him. However, the BDO, Panchayat Samiti, Buhana, passed an order on 01.06.1982 exonerating petitioner of all the charges and directed that he shall be paid full salary for period of suspension. Thus the period of his suspension was regularised in terms of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules.

6. Trouble for petitioners started when serious differences developed between Shri Prahlad Singh