A Male Nurse-cum-Compounder who has passed the matriculation examination or its equivalent and has undergone four years training and passed the B.P.N.A examination or its equivalent and employed in a class I hospital is entitled to grade I pay scale from the date such persons having fulfilled the other qualification starts working as a Male Nurse-cum-Compounder in a class I hospital.

1. - This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 before us, is brought against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated March 27, 1973 in a writ petition relating to the fixation of the respondent Gajraj Mehta in the higher grade as Male Nurse-cum-Componder.

2. The facts lie in a narrow compass and have been set out with clarity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We may briefly recapitulate such of them as are necessary for the disposal of the appeal.

3. Gajraj Mehta entered the service of the former Jodhpur State on 3rd November 1944 as a Male Nurse. After the merger of the former Jodhpur State with the new State of Rajasthan a cadre of Male Nurse cum-Compo-under Grade I was created in 1951. The entry into that cadre was, however, allowed only to those Male Nurses cum-Compounder who passed the matriculation examination and the B.P.N.A. or its equivalent examination and further who were employed in a class I hospital. We will be referring to that notification in the later part of our judgment. So far as the factual aspect is concerned the petitioner was non-matriculate when he first entered the service of the former Jodhpur State or when in Rajasthan the cadre of Male Nursecum-Compounder Grade I was created in the year 1951. He, however, passed the matriculation examination in the year 1953. Thereupon be made a representation to the authorities tor his fixation, in the prescribed pay grade of Rs. 150-5-200 from, April 1, 1953. The Principal, Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur, however, fixed his pay in grade I by his order Ex. D' dated October 4, 1957 with effect from March 1, 1956 on the ground that from this date be started working in grade I hospital. It was further mentioned in the order that the salary would be payable to an incumbent as and from the date when such incumbent took over charge in grade I hospital or to others who were already working in such hospitals. The petitioner went on making representations for his fixation from the earlier dates but they were turned down. Ultimately he was informed by the order Ex 'K' dated June 28, 1963 that the petitioner could not be considered for fixation in Grade I from April 1, 1953. The petitioner was, however, not discouraged and be made representations again but they too were rejected. Ultimately on his representation dated June 18, 1964 the Government wrote him to say vide memorandum Ex. 'W' dated February 4, 1965 that his case was under consideration, This thing was repeated in a like memorandum vide Ex. Y dated May 31 1965 that the final decision of the Government may be awaited. On 17-7-1967, however, the Government issued an order published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated September 21, 1967, which inter alia laid down that retrospective promotions could be given to indumberts by creation of supernumerary posts or by upgrading of posts in the case of tactual error or mis application, or non-compliance with the Rules or orders. This again encouraged the petitioner and he served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on the Government (Ex. z) calling upon the Government to promote him to grade I with effect from March 1953. As nothing came out of this notice the petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court on September 10, 1968

4. He claimed that be should be placed in grade I of Rs. 150-5-200 with effect from April 1, 1953 and given increments and other consequential benefits from the aforesaid date.

5. The State traversed the petitioner' claim. It was denied that the petitioner was entitled to the grade I of Rs. 150-5-200 from any date earlier to the one from which be was fixed in that grade. It was further contended that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay and, therefore, the same should be dismissed on that score.

6. Learned Single Judge reached the conclusion that there was satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition. As regards the merits of the petitioner's claim, after e