JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Since common question of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.

2. The respondent(s) approached the erstwhile learned Administrative Tribunal with the grievance that on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Vice- Chancellor of the University had been pleased to offer appointment to the respondent(s), however, because of non-receipt of the funds from the National Afforestation and Eco- Development (for short ‘NAED), their services were dis-engaged from 16.10.2014 vide letter dated 01.10.2014 whereas their juniors were retained.

3. The erstwhile learned Administrative Tribunal allowed all these petitions and directed the University to take the services of the respondent(s) on its regular establishment as had been done in the cases of Ms. Arpana Garg, Ms. Kamlesh Rani, Ms. Taruna Sharma, Shri Pawan Kumar, Shri Devender Rathore and Shri Nagesh Kumar Chandel vide order dated 07.09.2017 and respondent(s) were also held to be entitled for all consequential benefits, without any further loss of time. The outer limit for implementati