Gujarat High Court
Harishchandra Dayalji Lad vs Director Of Agriculture on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6268 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
HARISHCHANDRA DAYALJI LAD
Versus
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR GOHIL WITH MR GUNVANT B SHAH(3859) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. FORUM B. SUKHADWALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3-
STATE
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate with Mr. Gunvant B. Shah, learned advocate for petitioner and Ms. Forum B. Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents-State, at length.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, Page 1 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 16, and 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
"A) Quashing and setting aside order dt.18.1.2011 and letter dt. 5.9.2018 and further directing the respondents to grant 2nd higher pay scale w.e.f 1.6.2002 and further directing them to benefits accordingly along revise pensionary with consequential benefits and pay the arrears with 10% interest.
B) Directing the respondents to restore order dt.2.2.2009 granting 2nd higher pays scale w.e.f. 1.6.2002.
C) In the alternative respondent may be directed to grant benefit of stepping up and fix 2nd higher pay scale w.e.f.
1.6.2002 with all consequential benefits as per Rule 21 of G.C.S (Pay) Rules, 2002.
D) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition the respondents may be directed to pay the benefits of Page 2 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined principal amount on the baisis of original order dt.2.2.2009 from the date of filling this petition.
E) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper."
3. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
3.1 Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate, for petitioner would respectfully submit that impugned order dated 18.01.2011 requires to be quashed and set aside only on the ground that impugned order passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner was correctly granted benefit of second higher grade pay scale w.e.f. 01.06.2002 vide order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the respondent pursuance to Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 issued by the Finance Department, State of Gujarat.Page 3 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 3.2 Mr. Gohil, learned advocate, would further submit that when aforesaid G.R. dated 02.07.2007 came into existence, till that time, petitioner was not actually granted any benefit of second higher grade pay scale though completed nine years of service from the receipt of first higher grade pay scale, which was received on 01.06.1987. It is submitted that vide said order dated 02.02.2009, such benefit of second higher grade pay scale granted to petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.2002 is neither erroneous nor contrary to aforesaid G.R. dated 02.07.2007.
3.3 Mr. Gohil, learned advocate, for petitioner would respectfully submit that there was great injustice caused to the petitioner by the respondents having not granted the relief of stepping up of his pay scale to par with his Page 4 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined junior. It is submitted that petitioner worked as an Agriculture Supervisor with the respondents, having been appointed in the year 1975 and retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010 from the post of Assistant Agriculture Director. It is further submitted that before his retirement, he was given the benefit of second higher pay scale and thereby, received pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- vide respondent order dated 02.02.2009, given w.e.f. 01.06.2002.
3.4 Mr. Gohil, learned advocate would respectfully submit that the benefit of the second higher pay scale was given to the petitioner vide order dated 02.02.2009 w.e.f. 01.06.2002, but later on vide impugned communication dated 18.01.2011, the respondent-State has given such benefit with effect from 01.03.2006 instead of Page 5 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 01.06.2002, thereby his junior to the petitioner is getting a higher pay scale and consequently, received a higher pension than petitioner. It is submitted that such decision would not sustainable in law, inasmuch as, as per Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as " the Pay Rules, 2002"), the benefit of stepping up of pay to the petitioner ought to have been granted.
3.5 Mr. Gohil, learned advocate would respectfully submit that as soon as the petitioner came to know about such discrimination meted out to him by the respondents, by way of representation dated 16.03.2015, he requested the respondent authority to grant the benefit of stepping up of pay of petitioner w.e.f. where his junior received second higher grade pay scale. It is Page 6 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined submitted that petitioner had, in his representation, cited instances of his junior, who were granted the benefit of higher pay scale w.e.f. 20.01.2003 and 23.02.2003 respectively, but on an erroneous premise, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned communication dated 05.09.2018. It is respectfully submitted that the ground on which the aforesaid representation of the petitioner was turned down by the respondent is unsustainable as Clause 3(2) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 issued by the Finance Department of the State would not be applicable to the facts of the case; as such, the respondent authority requires to consider Clause 3(13) of the aforesaid Government Resolution whereby, it could have granted the benefit of stepping up of pay to the petitioner.
Page 7 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 3.6 Learned advocate Mr. Gohil would respectfully submit that petitioner is fulfilling all criteria of Rule 21 of Pay Rules, 2002; as such, the impugned decision of denying such benefit to the petitioner is arbitrary, unjustified and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which requires to be quashed and set aside by this Court.
3.7 Making the above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:-
4.1 Per contra, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Pleader would respectfully submit that there is no violation of principles of natural justice when the impugned order passed by respondent on Page 8 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 18.01.2011. It is submitted that no actual benefit of second higher grade pay scale passed on to petitioner pursuant to the said order dated 02.02.2009 till the time the impugned order came to be passed on 18.01.2011. It is respectfully submitted that due to aforesaid, there was no occasion arose for respondent to recover any amount from petitioner, thereby, it was not felt by respondent to give any opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
4.2 Ms. Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Pleader would respectfully submit that petitioner would not entitle to receive benefit of second higher grade pay scale as per aforesaid Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007, inasmuch as, he actually reached to maximum pay of Rs.9000/- in pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-
(first higher grade pay scale). It is respectfully submitted Page 9 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined that Finance Department of State of Gujarat vide its letter dated 17.12.2007 gave clarification for implementation of aforesaid G.R. dated 16.08.1994 and 02.07.2007 issued by Finance Department of State of Gujarat. It is further submitted that as per said clarification, if employee is entitled to receive the benefit of first, second and third higher grade pay scale before 02.07.2007, such employee would entitle to receive such benefits as per G.R. dated 16.08.1994, whereas those who are not entitled to receive second or third higher grade pay scale as per G.R. dated 16.08.1994, than as per Clause No. 2 (4) (b) of G.R. dated 02.07.2007, such employee would entitle to receive benefit of second higher grade pay scale on completion of fifteen years from date of receipt of first higher grade pay scale.
Page 10 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 4.3 Ms. Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Pleader would respectfully submit that the petitioner reached the maximum pay i.e. Rs. 9000 of the first higher pay scale (Rs.5500-9000) on 01.03.2005, then in terms of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, he was entitled to receive the benefit of the second higher grade pay scale w.e.f. 01.03.2006. It is further submitted that in the case of the junior of the petitioner, namely Mr. V.K. Bhatt, who reached the maximum pay i.e. Rs.
9000 of the first higher pay scale (Rs. 5500-9000) only on 01.12.2009, therefore, as per said clarification, he was given the benefit of aforesaid G.R. dated 02.07.2007. So, the petitioner would not entitle to get any benefit under aforesaid G.R. dated 02.07.2007.
4.4 Ms. Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Page 11 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Pleader would respectfully submit that the respondent authority, having found that the benefit of the aforesaid subsequent Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 is not applicable to petitioner and that his case would fall in the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, passed the impugned order dated 18.01.2011, thereby the effect of the second higher pay scale was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.2006 instead of 01.06.2002. It is respectfully submitted that as such, there is no error on the part of the respondents to grant the benefit of the second higher pay scale to the petitioner considering the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 instead of Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007, which was inadvertently granted vide its order dated 02.02.2009.
4.5 Ms. Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Page 12 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Pleader, would respectfully submits that if due to getting the benefit of the aforesaid G.R. dated 02.07.2007 by the junior to the petitioner, if there is any pay anomaly persist, thereby the junior getting a higher pay scale than the senior, Rule 21 of the Pay Rules, 2002 requires to be taken note of by the Authority.
4.6 Lastly, Ms. Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Pleader under the instruction of one Mr. Anant Joshi, Head Clerk, Office of Director of Agriculture, Gandhinagar, who is present before the Court, would candidly state that the petitioner senior to Mr. V.K. Bhatt and worked on the same cadre and post, so also in the same pay scale prior to the grant of the second higher pay scale. It is stated that after re-
appreciating the facts of the case of the petitioner, the Page 13 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined impugned communication dated 05.09.2018 requires to be revisited; thereby, the claim of the petitioner for stepping up needs to be reviewed by the the respondent and accordingly, if the claim of the petitioner will be found eligible, the effect of stepping up will be given to the petitioner as claimed.
4.7 Accordingly, Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP would pray that impugned order dated 18.01.2011 may not be disturbed by this Court.
5. No other and further submissions are being made by any of learned advocates.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the Page 14 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined respective parties. The following two issues mainly germane for consideration of this Court:
(i) Whether the impugned order dated 18.01.2011 passed in contravention of Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007? And as such, the petitioner entitled to receive benefit of second higher grade pay scale as per Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 instead of Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994?
(ii) Whether claim of petitioner to grant benefit of stepping up of his pay to get par with his junior, as per Rule 21 of the Pay Rules, 2002 would sustainable? And whether impugned communication dated 05.09.2018 requires interference of this Court?
Page 15 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined ANALYSIS:-
POINT NO. (i)
7. It is not in dispute that impugned order dated 18.01.2011 passed by respondent without affording any opportunity to petitioner. Nonetheless, it also remain undisputed on record that no amount has been recovered from petitioner though granted benefit of second higher grade pay scale vide respondent order dated 02.02.2009 by giving its effect from 01.06.2002.
8. Be that as it may, as can be seen from the affidavits of the respondents dated 14.10.2022 and 17.11.2025, it would hardly remain in dispute that petitioner entitled to receive the second higher grade pay scale only w.e.f. 01.03.2006 instead of 01.06.2002 as the Page 16 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined petitioner reached to maximum pay i.e. Rs. 9000 of first higher pay scale (Rs.5500-9000) on 01.02.2006, i.e., prior to the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007.
Whereas his junior Mr. V.K. Bhatt was eligible to receive the second higher grade pay scale having reached the maximum pay i.e. Rs. 9000 of first higher pay scale (Rs.5500-9000) only on 01.12.2009, then naturally Mr. Bhatt would entitle to receive aforesaid benefit of second higher grade pay scale as per aforesaid G.R. dated 02.07.2007.
8.1 Furthermore, aforesaid aspect has been clarified by Finance Department, State of Gujarat vide its aforesaid letter dated 17.12.2007, wherein it clearly observed that if an employee is entitled to receive the benefit of first, second and third higher grade pay scale before Page 17 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 02.07.2007, such employee would entitle to receive such benefits as per G.R. dated 16.08.1994. It has been further clarified that those who are not entitled to receive second or third higher grade pay scale as per G.R. dated 16.08.1994, than as per Clause No. 2 (4) (b) of G.R. dated 02.07.2007, such employee would entitle to receive benefit of second higher grade pay scale on completion of fifteen years from date of receipt of first higher grade pay scale.
8.2 Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, claim of the petitioner to get the second higher pay scale would not be governed by the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007, but he would entitle to receive second higher grade pay scale as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994.
Page 18 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 8.3 It further appears from the respective affidavits of the respective parties that no amount has been recovered by the respondent authority from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 18.01.2011, as the actual benefit of the second higher pay scale was not given to the petitioner till the time of passing of the said impugned order by the respondent. Thus, question of recovery of any amount from petitioner is out of place.
In view of the aforesaid observation, the so-called violation of principle of natural justice would not be sustainable.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court would not find any error in the impugned decision dated 18.01.2011, whereby the petitioner was granted the benefit of the second higher grade pay scale w.e.f.
Page 19 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 01.03.2006 instead of 01.06.2002, inasmuch as, vide order dated 02.02.2009, the respondent authority has erroneously taken into account the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 when granted the benefit of the second higher pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f.
01.06.2002. Point No. (i) is answered accordingly.
POINT NO. (ii)
10. The matter would have rest there when impugned order dated 18.1.2011 passed, but it is not so, rather after passing of impugned order, following controversy begun.
10.1 When two different aforesaid Government Resolutions are given its effect to same set of employees of respondents, it would result into, rather leads to a Page 20 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined pay anomaly vis-a-vis pay difference between them, whereby, the junior gets higher pay than his senior. If such situation arose, the respondent authority requires to take note of Rule 21 of the Pay Rules, 2002, to remove such anomaly in pay.
10.2 At this stage, it would be apt to refer to Rule 21 of the Pay Rules, 2002 which reads thus:
"21. Stepping up of a pay of a Government employee on the basis of the pay of his junior:
(1) Where on regulating initial pay of a Government employee under above rules-11, 13, 15 to 17 & 19 or on his appointment to a higher post if his pay is fixed at a lower rate of pay in that cadre than another Government employee junior to him in the lower grade but promoted or appointed subsequently in such another identical cadre; the pay of the senior Government employee on the higher post shall be stepped up to the figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior Government employee in that higher post with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Government employee and it shall be subject to the following conditions viz :-
(i) both, the junior and the senior Government employees belong to one and the same cadre and the posts to which they have been promoted or appointed, shall be identical and in the same cadre and in the same line of promotion;Page 21 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
(ii) the time-scales of pay of the lower posts held by the senior and the junior Government employees shall be identical;
(iii) the time scales of the higher posts to which the Government employees are promoted or appointed shall be identical;
(iv) the senior Government employee had he not been appointed to the higher post earlier than his junior, he would have been eligible to draw pay at a stage not lower than that admissible to his junior in the lower post immediately prior to the appointment of the junior Government employee to the higher post;
(v) the anomaly so caused must be the direct result of the application of this rule. For example, if even in the lower post the junior Government employee draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of fixation of pay under the normal rules or by grant of advance increment(s) for any reason, these provisions shall not be applicable to step up the pay of the senior Government employee.
(vi) the pay of the senior Government employee so increased due to stepping up of pay shall not be reduced on reversion of the junior Government employee nor shall it be increased again with reference to the pay of the same officer.
(2) After the re-fixation of pay of the senior Government employee with reference to the pay of his junior, the next increment shall occur to him only after he has rendered the qualifying service which is necessary for drawing such increment from the stage at which his pay had been re-fixed."
10.3 It is not in dispute that due to giving effect of two different aforesaid Government Resolutions dated Page 22 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 16.08.1994 and 02.07.2007 to the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Bhatt, his junior respectively, there appears difference of pay between them, which resulted into a situation, whereby the junior to the petitioner received higher pay than the petitioner. This being undisputed fact, this Court would not like to elaborate anything more on actual pay anomaly etc..
11. The petitioner having come to know about the anomaly of pay between him and his junior, and having so found that his junior is actually getting more pay than him due to giving effect of the second higher pay scale at different points of time, made a representation dated 16.03.2015 by requesting the respondent authority to take note of such anomaly and to give effect of stepping up of his pay; thereby, he would get pay at par Page 23 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined with his junior.
12. Unfortunately, the competent authority of the respondent, without appreciating the effect of aforesaid Rule 21, ignoring the facts of the present case, erroneously rejected such representation of the petitioner vide its impugned communication dated 05.09.2018, by placing reliance upon Clause 3 (2) of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994.
13. When this Court has minutely examined the aforesaid Clause 3 (2) of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, it appears that such clause is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case as it would be applicable in the cases where an employee is shifted from one cadre to another cadre in public service, and/or there is a change of name of Page 24 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined cadre, as the case may be. None is the situation on hand as it is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as his junior, Mr. Bhatt, worked on the same cadre and post in the same department, id est, the Agriculture Department, also drawing similar pay by getting benefit of first higher pay scale, albeit at different point of time.
14. It appears that Clause 3 (13) of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 escaped from the notice of the respondent authority, wherein it has been so provided that on application of the higher pay scale, if any senior employee gets lesser pay than his junior, the "principle of stepping up" would come into effect and all such cases can be scrutinized and regularized accordingly.
15. Having so discussed and observed hereinabove, the Page 25 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined petitioner and Mr. V.K. Bhatt, who happens to be his junior, worked on the same cadre and post, drawn same time scale of pay, albeit, given the benefit of the second higher pay scale at different point in time due to applicability of said Government Resolutions, id est, 16.08.1994 and 02.07.2007 respectively; whereby, petitioner received the second higher pay scale w.e.f.
01.03.2006, whereas his junior received it w.e.f.
20.01.2003/23.02.2003 respectively; thus, definitely the petitioner, though senior, received lesser pay than his junior.
16. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Maganbhai Arjanbhai Vegda vs. State of Gujarat and Others rendered in Special Civil Application No. Page 26 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 12541 of 2011 and allied matter dated 28.11.2011 , wherein after taking note of almost identical factual situation and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal vs. Punjab State Electricity Board reported in (2009) 3 SCC 94, more particularly observed in paragraph 12 to 14 thereof, held thus:
"12. However, the Government Resolution dated 08.05.1970 of the Finance Department with regard to pay fixation and removal of anomaly was authorized by clause prescribed in the method of stepping up to be followed and conditions laid down therein may not be fulfilled. The conditions enumerated in para 3 of the said Government Resolution, read as under:
3. The method of "stepping up' shall be employee subject to the following conditions, all of which must be satisfied:
[a] the Government Servants concerned should belonging to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre; [b] The time-scale of the pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical.
[c] But for his promotion to post earliest the Government Servant concerned would have been eligible to draw pay Page 27 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined in the lower post, at a stage not lower than that admissible to the Junior person immediately prior to the latter's promotion to highest post;
[d] The anomaly is directly attributable to the provision of the Government Resolution, Finance Department No. Pay- 1264/463, dated the 5th January, 1965"
The above conditions reveal that Government servants concerned should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical and in the same cadre and time scale of the pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical.
13. The above two conditions viz. 3(a) and (b) if read together with the purpose of issuing the said Government Resolution are to remove heartburning and dissatisfaction amongst senior employees, who are receiving lower pay scale than the juniors or at least in the same pay scale as given to the juniors. The facts of the case would reveal that merger of two cadres was effected to remove anomalies pursuant to the directions given by the High Court in earlier round of litigation and Government Resolution of 10.10.2007 was issued. However, clause Nos.6 & 7 of the said Government Resolution instead of removing anomaly has complicated the pay band receivable by the petitioners discriminating them and the very purpose of removing heart burning is frustrated. If the above Government Resolution is seen in the context of Revision of Pay Scale Rules, 1998 and subsequent revision of rules it transpires that clause 6 of Government Resolution dated 10.10.2007 is contrary to condition No.4 of the Government Resolution and also conditions Nos.3(13) of Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. In case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal in paras 17 and 18 of the said judgment held as under:Page 28 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
"17. Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra's submissions about the difference in increment in the scales in which Appellant 1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to Appellant 1 and the scale given to Shri Shori, such anomaly should not have been allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified so that the pay of Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of Appellant 2.
18. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court in this regard or the submissions made in support thereof by Mr. Chhabra, since the very object to be achieved is to bring the pay scale of Appellant 1 on a par with that of his junior. We are clearly of the opinion that the reasoning of the High Court was erroneous and Appellant 1 was also entitled to the same benefit of pay parity with Shri Shori as has been granted to Appellant 2".
14. That similar was the case decided by the Division Bench of this Court when the Laboratory Assistants working under the Directorate of Higher Education, Directorate of Technical Education and non- government colleges affiliated to the Gujarat University were denied parity in the pay scale and wages. Relying on doctrine of equal pay for equal work, the Division Bench directed the State authorities to treat Lab Assistant of non-grant Government colleges at par with Lab Assistants of Directorate of Higher Education working with Government Department. However, the case of the petitioners herein is on a better footing inasmuch as they are working under the same directorate and there is no dispute about merger of post and cadre on which they are now working and receiving less salary than their Page 29 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined juniors. Such discrimination on the face of it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and respondents are duty-bound to give the pay scale of the petitioner at par with those employees who are junior to the petitioners working on the same cadre and post. Even seniority list relied and placed on record by the petitioners is also not in dispute."
(emphasis supplied)
17. As a matter of record, it is also required to be noted here that the aforesaid decision was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 08.01.2013 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1349 of 2012 preferred by the State of Gujarat.
17.1 It would be profitable to refer the judgment dated 08.01.2013 passed in said Letters Patent Appeal No.1349 of 2012 by the Division Bench of this Court;
some pertinent observations and findings of the aforesaid decision read thus:
"4. As such, it is not a matter where the parity in the pay- cale is to be considered between two separate and independent cadres which normally is to be considered and examined by the expert body. But in Page 30 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the present case, the question to be considered as considered by the learned Single Judge was for stepping up of the pay-scale on account of circumstance that the junior to the petitioner due to revision in the pay-scale has been granted higher pay-scale or junior to the petitioner has been found entitled for higher pay-scale, which should be granted to petitioner. Further, the entitlement of stepping up of the pay-scale is within the same cadre and same post and not in different post of different cadre.
5. It is an admitted position that Shri.M.N.Chauhan is junior to the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that he has been granted higher pay-scale of Foreman after revision from 1996 since he had completed 9 years of service after whereas in case of the petitioner they were granted higher pay-scale for the post of Supervisor Instructor on 02.03.1993 with effect from 01.06.1987.
6. It is also an admitted position that in the revision of pay-scale of 1996, the pay-scale for the post of Craft Instructor (which was lower post) and the post of Supervisor Instructor has been merged and one pay-scale is fixed i.e. 1400- 2300. Under this circumstance, the only higher pay-scale, if any, employee is to receive would be to the post of Foreman if considered eligible and granted after 01.01.1996. It is not case of the appellant that Shri.M.N.Chauhan-junior to the petitioner has been wrongly granted higher pay- scale of Foreman from the post of Supervisor Instructor but the contentions are that since the benefit of higher pay-scale already granted prior 01.01.1996 is not to be reopened and it is to be deemed that the higher pay-scale is already granted to the petitioner prior to 01.01.1996 and second time higher pay-scale would not be available.
7. The contention may prima-facie appear to be attractive, but upon close scrutiny, it appears that it is not a matter of granting of higher Page 31 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined pay-scale, but it is a matter of stepping up of the pay-scale on account of circumstance that the junior is drawing higher pay-scale in comparison to the senior. As per the Government Resolution dated 10.10.2007, in the clause no.5, stepping up is made permissible.
Therefore, Clause No.5 would be applicable in the present case and not Clause No.6 as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant, since, it is not for grant of higher pay-scale, but is of stepping up of pay- scale on account of circumstance that the juniors were drawing higher pay-scale in comparison to the seniors. The decision of the Apex Court upon which reliance has been placed by learned Government Pleader Mr.P.K.Jani is ill-founded inasmuch as in both the cases, the Apex Court was not considering the issue of stepping up of the pay- cale on account of juniors receiving higher pay-scale. Moreover, the entitlement of the junior for higher pay-scale is not under question or under challenge in the preset proceedings nor it is the stand of the State Government that the juniors were granted higher pay-scale wrongly. Therefore, we find that both the decisions are of no help of the appellant."
(emphasis supplied)
18. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in mind the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid decisions, so much so Rule 21 of the Pay Rules, 2002 squarely apply to the present case, whereby petitioner being senior to Mr. V.K. Bhatt, having worked on same cade and post, drawn similar time scale of pay, Page 32 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined still received lesser pay/pension then his junior, in this background of facts and circumstance, entitled to receive the benefit of stepping up of his pay, thereby petitioner also requires to get similar pay/pension from the date on which Mr. V.K. Bhatt has been given effect of second higher grade pay scale. Point No. (ii) is answered accordingly.
19. The petitioner prayed for interest on amount to be recovered from respondent, but considering the fact that the impugned order passed by the respondent on 18.01.2011, and petitioner submitted his representation on 16.03.2015, which was turned down by the respondent on 05.09.2018; as such the present petition came to be filed on 27.03.2019; thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and having not found any malice on Page 33 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the part of the respondent authority in not granting the benefit of stepping up to the petitioner at given point of time, this Court would not like to grant interest on arrears amount payable to the petitioner; except, the petitioner will be entitled to receive simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on failure of payment of amount by the respondent within the stipulated time as observed by this Court hereinbelow.
20. Before parting with, it is necessary to observe that when this Court has, examined the merits of the present case, have gone through the impugned order dated 18.01.2011, whereby it found from the list appended thereto that there are several other employees of the respondent-Agriculture Department, including the petitioner (in all, 15 employees), appears to be similarly Page 34 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined affected by the revision of the date for grant of the second higher pay scale, which had earlier been fixed as per the order dated 02.02.2009. Thus, in the cases of those employees as well, an anomaly might arise whereby they might be drawing a lesser pay than their juniors. Since this Court is inclined to accept the petitioner's submissions regarding to grant the benefit of stepping up of his pay by the respondents, in such circumstances, this Court would fail in its duty as a Constitutional Court, if appropriate directions are not issued in respect of those similarly situated employees like petitioner as well, although not approached this Court by way of separate petition.
CONCLUSIONS:
21. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present Page 35 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined petition deserves to be partly allowed and inescapable conclusion thus:
21.1 The impugned order dated 18.01.2011 passed by respondent not requires any interference of this Court except the impugned communication dated 05.09.2018 issued by respondent No. 1 requires to be quashed and set aside.
21.2 As held above, petitioner entitled to receive benefit of second higher grade pay scale only as per aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 not Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007, thus, granting him such benefit w.e.f. 01.03.2006 instead of 01.06.2002 is just and proper.
21.3 The petitioner, being senior to Mr. V.K. Bhatt, is Page 36 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined drawing lesser pay/pension than his junior - Mr. Bhatt, on account of the grant of the benefit of the second higher grade pay scale as per the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 instead of 02.07.2007. So, the claim of the petitioner as aforesaid for stepping up of his pay requires to be allowed by respondent, and having not done so by way of impugned communication dated 05.09.2018 resulted into violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 21 of Pay Rules, 2002 as well.
22. In view of the forgoing conclusion, following order/directions are passed:
22.1 The respondents are directed to fix the pay and pay scale of petitioner at par with his junior, Mr. V.K. Bhatt, by granting all the consequential benefit of Page 37 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined stepping up in accordance with Rule 21 of the Pay Rules, 2002, read with Clause 3 (13) of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 by paying arrears amount of difference of pay on or before 31.03.2026.
22.2 Consequently, after giving the aforesaid effect of pay and pay scale, revise the pension of the petitioner, then pay arrears of revise pension and start paying revise pension to petitioner. Such exercise also be completed as soon as possible but not later than 31.03.2026.
22.3 Likewise, the respondents are also directed to consider the cases of other similarly situated persons like petitioner, who are shown in the list appended with the impugned order dated 18.01.2011 [Annexure-F], (15 Page 38 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined employees in total, including the petitioner). Thereby if, their cases are also found similar to the petitioner and they are also entitled for the benefit of stepping up, the same shall be granted to them as well with all consequential benefits, including revision of pension, at the earliest but not later than 30.04.2026.
22.4 The aforesaid entire exercise of computing/paying all benefits be completed by the respondents as early as possible, in any case not later than 31.03.2026 as aforesaid. All consequential benefits, i.e., pay and pension be paid to petitioner and to other similarly situated persons within aforesaid period, failing which, the respondents shall be liable to pay such amount (all benefits) with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum interest from 01.04.2026 & 01.05.2026 Page 39 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6268/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined respectively till its realization.
22.5 As observed earlier, no interest is granted on any arrears amount till 31.03.2026, except interest to be granted in a case of default as observed hereinabove.
23. In view of the aforesaid, present writ petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 40 of 40 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:55:56 IST 2025