Gujarat High Court
Ashok Ijjatray Anjaria vs Gujarat Maritime Board on 16 February, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13913 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
ASHOK IJJATRAY ANJARIA
Versus
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 16/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties matter was heard finally. Hence, RULE. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia waives the service of rule on behalf of respondents - Gujarat Maritime Board.
Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined
2. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya states that the petitioner is not inclined to consider his case at par with that of a person whom the petitioner considers junior, namely Mr. Tushar Vyas, who was promoted with effect from 23rd December 2016. Therefore, the petitioner confines his case only in respect of Mr. Mukesh Langalia for the purpose of claiming the benefit of stepping up. Though several averments are made in the petition, the arguments were confined only to considering the case of the present petitioner vis-à-vis Mr. Mukesh Langalia, and in this background, the matter was argued, heard, and is being decided now.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"7. The petitioner prays that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent-authorities and may be pleased to :-
Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined (A) hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled for stepping up of pay at par with the pay of his Junior Tushar Vyas with effect from 23.12.2016 in the promotional post of Senior Clerk or at par with Mukesh Langaliya in the cadre of Clerk w.e.f. 29.12.1999, and (B) further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to step up the pay of petitioner to the figure equal to the pay as fixed for his junior Tushar Vyas in the promotional post of Senior Clerk with effect from the date of promotion -
23.12.2016 or equal to the pay as fixed for Mukesh Langaliya in the cadre of Clerk w.e.f. 29.12.1999, with all consequential benefits including difference of pay and allowance with interest, and (C) award the cost of this petition, and (D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the applications of petitioner and decide the same in accordance with the rules related to stepping up of pay, and/or (E) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Hounourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. However, as learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya herself has stated that she does not want to compare the case of the present petitioner vis- à-vis Mr. Tushar Vyas, the only question to be Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined examined by the Court at this juncture for considering the aspect of stepping up would be to compare the petitioner's case with another employee, i.e., Mr. Mukesh Langalia, in the cadre of Clerk with effect from 29th December 1999.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya summarized the facts of the case as follows:
5.1 That the present petitioner joined the services under the respondent as a Class-III Group-C Clerk on a daily-wage basis on 18.04.1984 and thereafter preferred a petition in the year 1988, being Special Civil Application No. 1375 of 1988, seeking regularization of his service, equal pay for equal work, and protection against his apprehended termination of service. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner was granted the benefit of the Government GR dated 17.10.1988, and as per the averments made on oath by the petitioner himself Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined while affirming the petition, the aforesaid petition was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, directing the respondent Board to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 11.03.1997 and to pay him arrears of the difference in wages and other benefits, and to refix his salary accordingly. The said directions were given vide judgment dated 3rd December 2001 delivered in Special Civil Application No. 1375 of 1988, and the aforesaid decision was carried in appeal by the Board by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 269 of 2002, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2008, and thereafter, when the respondent preferred an SLP against the said order being SLP (Civil) No. 28060 of 2008, the said special leave petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.07.2014.
5.2 After the dismissal of the aforesaid SLP, as the order dated 3 rd December 2001 passed Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined in Special Civil Application No. 1375 of 1988 was not complied with, the petitioner was constrained to file MCA (For Contempt) No. 3551 of 2014, and the said contempt application was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court while noting the contents of the order dated 22 nd April 2015 placed on record by the advocate for the present respondent, which reads as under:
"Shri Ashok I. Anjaria, Clerk-cum-Typist is regularized with effect from 11.03.1997 vide office order No.117 dated 11.08.2014. As he has completed 9 years in a feeder cadre on 11.03.2006, the higher pay-scale in pay band of Rs.5200-20200, Grade Pay Rs.2400/ is granted as per ROP, 2009 with effect from 11.03.2006, as a special case, on condition of passing pre-training examination within stipulated attempts."
5.3 Thereafter, in the year 2018, the petitioner again preferred a Miscellaneous Application, being Misc. Civil Application No. 675 of 2018, before the Division Bench of this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 22nd January 2019, directing the respondents not to insist upon pre-service training qua the petitioner.
Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined 5.4 The aforesaid nature of litigation provides the background that although the petitioner claimed regularization by preferring a petition in the year 1988, the order of regularization was passed in the year 2001 directing the respondents to regularize his services with effect from 11th March 1997, and the said order was implemented only in the year 2015.
5.5 By way of this petition, it is the case of the petitioner that though he was appointed on 18th April 1984, persons junior to him, namely Mr. Mukesh N. Langalia and Mr. Tushar Vyas, are getting a higher pay scale, and therefore, the respondents are required to be directed to step up the pay of the present petitioner and to place him at par with those two persons. However, as stated earlier at the outset, learned advocate Ms. Pandya gave up the challenge in respect of the comparison of pay scale with Mr. Tushar Vyas, and therefore, the Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined petitioner's case is required to be considered only in respect of Mr. Mukesh N. Langalia. 5.6 According to learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya, Mr. Mukesh Langalia was regularized only in the year 1999, whereas the present petitioner was regularized with effect from 11th March 1997, as can be seen from the salary slip as well as the seniority list prepared by the respondents, and therefore, according to learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya, this amounts to an admission on the part of the respondents that the present petitioner is senior in terms of the date of regularization when compared with Mr. Mukesh Langalia, and consequently, it is impermissible to pay the present petitioner a lesser salary than Mr. Mukesh Langalia, who was regularized later. 5.7 On this short premise, the matter was argued by learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya, who submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that a junior person must not get a Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined higher salary than a person who enjoys seniority, and therefore, in the instant case, a situation has been created whereby Mr. Mukesh Langalia is getting higher salary than the present petitioner, and such anomaly is required to be removed.
5.8 By drawing the attention of this Court to the salary slip of the present petitioner for the month of March 2017, it was pointed out that the present petitioner is getting a basic salary of Rs. 11,110/-, whereas Mr. Mukesh Langalia is drawing a basic salary of Rs. 12,290/-, though he was regularized later in the year 1999, as can be seen from the seniority list wherein the present petitioner's name appears at serial No. 349, whereas Mr. Langalia's name figures at serial No. 391, which indicates that the present petitioner is senior to Mr. Mukesh Langalia, and therefore, in view of series of decisions, great injustice has been done to the present petitioner, and consequently, the petition is required to be allowed and the petitioner is Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined required to be given the benefit of stepping up by holding that he is entitled to have his salary at par with Mr. Mukesh Langalia with effect from 29th December 1999, and all incidental and consequential benefits are required to be paid to the petitioner. 5.9 Ms. Harshal Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner, relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kanubhai Ravjibhai Padhiyar versus State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 8465 of 2022 dated 26th August 2022 and submitted that in that petition also, the petitioner was paid less salary as compared to his junior in the entry-level pay scale pursuant to the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission, and that anomaly was removed by the order dated 26th August 2022 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench, which had attained finality. Thereafter, learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat versus Nair Smita Vinu and others in Letters Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined Patent Appeal No. 652 of 2016 and allied matters decided on 15th September 2016, and submitted that in the aforesaid case also, similar anomaly was removed by this Court.
5.10 Lastly, learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 94, and submitted that such discrimination was held to be impermissible, and in view of these three decisions, the respondents are required to step up the salary of the present petitioner at par with Mr. Mukesh Langalia by giving suitable directions and allowing the petition. No other submissions were made by learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya appearing for the petitioner.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia, appearing for the respondents, at the outset tendered a comparative chart showing the position of the Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined present petitioner vis-à-vis Mr. Mukesh Langalia and Mr. Tushar Vyas, and from the chart, learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia sought to point out that the present petitioner joined the services on 18th April 1984, whereas Mr. Mukesh Langalia joined the services on 1st January 1983 as a work-charge typist, and therefore, in terms of the date of appointment, Mr. Mukesh Langalia was even otherwise senior to the present petitioner. 6.1 Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia submitted that, as far as the present petitioner is concerned, though he preferred a petition for regularization being Special Civil Application No. 1375 of 1988 in the year 1988 itself, the aforesaid petition was decided by judgment dated 3rd December 2001, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent Board to regularize his services with effect from 11 th March 1997.
6.2 Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia submitted that the aforesaid order was carried Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined in appeal before the Division Bench and thereafter before the Supreme Court of India by the respondent Board, but the Board failed all throughout up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and ultimately, the petitioner was regularized with effect from 11th March 1997.
6.3 Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia submitted that the petitioner never challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that he should be regularized by taking into consideration his initial date of appointment, and she further submitted that by the time the petition was decided on 3rd December 2001, Mr. Mukesh Langalia was already regularized with effect from 1999 and his pay scale was also fixed, and these facts were known to the present petitioner at the time when the matter was argued and the CAV judgment was declared, but the petitioner never challenged the aforesaid decision by preferring any application for modification of the judgment or by way of any substantive petition. Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined 6.4 Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia also submitted that it is true that the aforesaid order was implemented only in the year 2015, but thereafter, when the petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No.675 of 2018, and though by that time the pay fixation of the petitioner had also taken place, the said petition was only in respect of seeking a direction not to insist upon pre-service training, and even at that time, the petitioner did not make even a whisper about any injustice being meted out to him.
6.5 Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia therefore submitted that when the petitioner's regularization was done pursuant to the Court's order, which had been confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and when the date from which the petitioner's services were to be regularized was also determined by the Court, the respondents had no discretion or choice to alter the aforesaid date of regularization. She further pointed out from the CAV judgment of the Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 3rd December 2001, more particularly from paragraph No.6, that the question of seniority was also raised before the Court at the relevant point of time by the petitioner. However, by observing in paragraph No. 6 to the effect pointed out by learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia, it appears that at the relevant point of time also the petitioner had tried to raise the issue of his seniority vis-à-vis Mr. Tushar Mansukhbhai, but he never raised the issue of seniority between himself and Mr. Mukesh Langalia, and in the instant petition, at the outset, the petitioner has given up the issue of considering his seniority vis-à-vis Mr. Tushar Vyas, and therefore, though the petitioner was aware of the fact that Mr. Langalia was getting a higher salary at the relevant point of time since 1999, al throughout from 2001 to 2018, when the last miscellaneous application was preferred by the petitioner, this issue was never raised by the petitioner, and for the first time in the year Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined 2022, after a lapse of 21 years, the issue of stepping up has been raised by the present petitioner without there being any proper justification or explanation for the delay of 21 years, and therefore, on the ground of delay also, this petition is required to be dismissed. 6.6 Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia also submitted that for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, the date of joining in the department is considered and not the date of regularization, which can be seen from the salary slip, and if the date of joining is considered, Mr. Mukesh Langalia joined the respondent Board in the year 1983, whereas the present petitioner joined the services under the respondents only on 18th April 1984, i.e., almost one year later, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered senior to Mr. Mukesh Langalia.
6.7 Learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia submitted that as the petitioner entered the Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined organization after Mr. Mukesh Langalia and has never challenged his date of regularization fixed by the Court, the salary of the present petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Langalia was fixed considering their continuous service, and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is getting less salary than a person who is junior to him, and in view of the facts of this case, the decisions relied upon by learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya are not applicable, and hence, the petition is required to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record, and upon perusal, I have noted a few important aspects, which are as under:
7.1 Though the petitioner claimed regularization, claimed equal pay for equal work, and preferred a petition against his apprehended termination being Special Civil Application No. 1375 of 1988 in the year 1988 Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined itself, when the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order regularizing his services with effect from 11th March 1997, and though the matter was pending by way of appeal or SLP before the Division Bench of this Court or before the Supreme Court of India from 2002 till 2015, when the contempt application was decided, the petitioner never questioned the date of regularization even by preferring a miscellaneous application, and having accepted the date of regularization, the petitioner has also accepted his actual seniority, which indicates that he has accepted the date of regularization.
7.2 The Court has noted that the petitioner's date of joining in the department is 18th April 1984, whereas Mr. Mukesh Langalia joined the department on 1st January 1983, which indicates that he had joined the department earlier in point of time, even though his services were regularized later, and therefore, his pay fixation was done keeping in mind the Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined date of joining, and further, when Mr. Mukesh Langalia was regularized in the year 1999, this fact was known to the petitioner at the time when his petition for regularization was pending before this Court, and despite that, the petitioner at the relevant point of time, raised the issue of his seniority vis-à-vis Mr. Tushar Vyas, wherein the Court observed in paragraph No. 6 of the judgment that seniority is a question which could have been determined by the Labour Court had the petitioner approached it, and even at that point of time, Mr. Mukesh Langalia was nowhere in the picture, and the petitioner never claimed that he should be considered senior to Mr. Mukesh Langalia. 7.3 The third aspect, which is also equally important and noted by the Court, is the fact that though the Co-ordinate Bench passed the order dated 3rd December 2001 directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner with effect from 11th March 1997, and though the said order was implemented and acted upon only in the Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined year 2015, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the contempt application being Misc. Civil Application No. 3551 of 2014 vide order dated 23rd April 2015, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not only regularized vide order dated 11th August 2014, but was also given the benefit upon completion of nine years by granting a higher pay scale as a special case with effect from 11 th March 2006.
In the instant case, if the prayer is carefully examined, the petitioner's grievance relates back to the year 1999, and therefore, the petitioner could have taken up the issue at any time between 1999 and 2015, or at least when he preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 675 of 2018, seeking exemption from pre-service training, but the record indicates that the petitioner never took up the issue or raised any grievance about his pay fixation, and even learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya could not dispute this aspect or point out anything from the record to show that throughout these 21 Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined years from 2001 to 2022, or at least from the date of his regularization, i.e., 11 th August 2014, till 2018 or till the petition was preferred, the petitioner had raised any grievance in this regard by approaching the Court.
7.4 Not only that, the petitioner has not sufficiently explained the delay in raising such grievance in the petition, nor could learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya explain, at the time of arguments, the delay of 21 years in raising such grievance, as the petitioner's case vis-à- vis Mr. Mukesh Langalia relates back to the year 1999 and the petition was preferred in the year 2022.
7.5 As far as the judgments relied upon by learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya are concerned, the petitioner's case cannot be said to have similar or identical facts, for the reason that the petitioner has accepted his date of regularization as 11th March 1997, which is as Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined per the order passed by this Court and confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and further, the aspect of delay was not present in those judgments, and therefore, though the ratio of the judgments cited by learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya cannot be questioned, considering the facts on hand, those judgments are not applicable to the present case, and resultantly, no case is made out for granting the relief as prayed for.
7.6 One more thing I would like to add while dismissing the petition is that, as per the chart given by learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandavia, the present petitioner was superannuated only on 31st December 2023, whereas Mr. Mukesh Langalia retired on 31st July 2018, and at the time of retirement, the petitioner was drawing a salary in Level Six of the pay matrix of Rs. 35,400-1,12,400/- and was having a basic salary of Rs. 43,600/-, whereas Mr. Mukesh Langalia was drawing a salary at the time of his retirement in Level Four of the pay matrix of Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13913/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined Rs. 25,500-81,100/- and his basic pay was Rs.41,000/-, and therefore, on factual comparison also, the petitioner cannot be said to have been deprived of any benefit. However, at this stage, learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya submitted that such scale was given on account of the fact that the present petitioner was promoted in the year 2020, but the fact remains that even if the aforesaid comparison is discarded, for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the Court is of the view that no injustice has been caused to the present petitioner, and therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Feb 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 01:49:39 IST 2026