ORDER :

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and M/s. Deepak Battacharjee, Learned standing counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.

2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent for regularizing the petitioners service instead of initial appointment regularized on 25.02.2006 and rejecting the petitioners representation and issued an impugned order no. MR.682/132/2009/Admn.I-1, dated 31.10.2013 as illegal, improper, arbitrary and consequentially direct the respondent to regularize with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., from 23.06.1989 of the 1st petitioner and 12.10.1991 of the 2nd petitioner and pay all the consequential benefits.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The Petitioners herein were appointed as Adhoc lecturers for Statistic Department and Mathematics Department 1989 & 1991 respectively in the 2nd respondent university and their appointments were extended from time to time by the 2nd respondent university.

(b) Along with the similarly situated Lecturers, the petitioners herein had filed a Writ Petition and sought for regularizing their services and also to direct the 2nd respondent not to appoint any part time lecturers. The same has been allowed as prayed for in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in AIR 1997 (SE) 1628.

(c) The Respondent university had filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge and the same were dismissed, directing the respondent university to regularize the services of the petitioner.

(d) Respondent university, after receiving the permission from the 1st respondent, and the same being approved by the Executive Council had regularized the services of the petitioner vide proceedings vide No. MR-64/2/2003/Admn.III, dated 25.02.2006 with effect from 25.02.2006 without considering the past services of 17 (Seventeen) years, which would disqualify the petitioners from getting the benefits of pension as per the old scheme for granting pension.

(f) By virtue of the past experience, the 1st petitioner was promoted under a career advancement scheme vide the 2nd respondents proceedings No. MR-812/89/2006/Admn.II-1 dated 25.05.2007 and fixing the pay scale (Senior Scale) as an Assistant Professor and the 1st petitioner was further promoted to Associated Professor through respondent university’s proceedings vide No. MR-12/147/2007/Admn.II-1, dated 01.02.2010 and granted 2 (Two) annual grade increments.

(g) The 1st Petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 02.01.2008 to consider the regularization of the services of the 1st petitioner from the date of initial appointment and to implement Career Advancement Scheme from the date of eligibility.

(h) The 2nd petitioner too by virtue of past experience, was promoted as Assistant Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme by the 2nd respondent university vide proceeding No. MIR-810/87/2006/Admn.II-1, dated 25.05.2007 and was further promoted to the post of Associated Professor by 2nd respondent vide proceeding No. MR-213/147/2007/Admn.I-1 dated 29.11.2008.

(i) The 2nd respondent, Vide Proceeding No. MR-125/147/2007/Admn.II-1, dated 27.10.2009 also granted 2 (Two) Annual Grade Increments to the 2nd Petitioner and the 2nd petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 31.12.2007,to consider the regularization of the services of the 2nd petitioner from the date of initial appointment and also to implement Career Advancement Scheme from the date of eligibility.

(j) But even after the representations of the 1st and the 2nd petitioner, the 2nd respondent has neither rejected nor considered the representations of the petitioners and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed Writ Petition No. 5339 of 2010 and the court vide its order on 14.08.2013 had direct