Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Sudhaben Laxamanbhai Chaudhari D/O ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 July, 2022

Author: Biren Vaishnav

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

     C/SCA/8511/2019                             JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8511 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
SUDHABEN LAXAMANBHAI CHAUDHARI D/O LAXMANBHAI CHAUDHARI
                        Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HEMAL A DAVE(3832) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.KURVEN DESAI for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                             Date : 12/07/2022

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

Page 1 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022

C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under:

"(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, by directing the respondents to grant the benefits of higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- to the petitioner after completion of 9 years of service i.e. 19.8.1991 instead of 28.11.1996 and grant her consequential revised retiral benefits accordingly.
(B) Be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to grant of Rs. 2000-3500 instead of 1640-2900 as first higher grade pay scale from the date of completion of 9 years of service, and further higher grade scale on completion of requisite length of service in terms of government Resolutions governing grant of higher pay scale and accordingly revise her Page 2 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 pay and retirement benefits with interest @ 9% per annum."

4. Heard Ms.Himanshi Balodi learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP for the State.

5. This Court vide judgment order dated 02.02.2022 rendered in Special Civil Application No.6973 of 2020 has considered the issue in context of the prayer made in the petition, wherein, the petitioner has prayed for a higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- in stead of Rs.1640-2900/- from the date of completing nine years of service from her initial date of appointment.

6. The relevant paragraphs of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.6973 of 2019 read as under:

"7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and considering the dates of appointment on which the Page 3 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 petitioners were appointed as Mukhya Sevikas which is evident from the schedule that the learned AGP has referred to in the affidavit-in- reply at Annexure R1, what clearly emerges is that the petitioners are appointed initially in the year 1982. A few of the petitioners were appointed in the year 1983, albeit, that would not make any difference for the reasons of this judgement. Admittedly, therefore, the petitioners had completed 9 years of service prior to the date when the rules for examinations were notified, namely Rule 8 of The Child Development Project Officer (Female), Gujarat Public Health Service Class-II Recruitment Rules. These rules were notified on 14.01.1993 and admittedly the petitioners had completed 9 years of service in the year 1991 or 1992 as the case may be.

7.1 Keeping this in mind, it is relevant that the decision first in point of time rendered by this court in Special Civil Application No. 8181 of 1998 needs to be referred to. The prayer of the petitioners therein was that they are entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. Considering the case of the petitioners, the court held that there was sufficient merit in the stand of the petitioners and the court opined that from the rules which Page 4 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 have been brought into force from 14.01.1993, the petitioners are entitled to the first higher pay scale in the scale of Rs.2000-3500. The relevant portion of the decision dated 06.08.1999 is reproduced hereunder:

"I find sufficient merits in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and which is not strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondents that the Child Development Project (Female) in the Gujarat Public Health Service Examination Rules, 1993 have come into force after the date on which the petitioners have already completed 9 years in the feeder cadre and the respondents could not have insisted for passing of the examination by them to make themselves eligible for the benefits of the higher pay scale. From the Rules, aforesaid I find that they have brought into force from the date of their publication in the official gazette. The notification of those Rules is dated 14/1/1993 and in all the eventuality their publication in the official gazette could not have been earlier to 14/1/1993."

7.2 That order of the learned Single Judge was not interfered with in Letters Patent Appeal No. Page 5 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 663 of 2000 and the appeals were dismissed by order dated 28.01.2020.

8. Following the aforesaid view this court once again in a group of petitions led by Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2010 by an oral judgment dated 18.02.2010 held as under:

"2. Present petitions are filed by Child Development Project (Female) Officers. Petitioners of Special Civil Applications No.487 of 2010 and 489 of 2010 have retired from service on 31.10.2009 and 31.3.2009 respectively. All the petitioners were appointed as Mukhya Sevikas between the year 1976 to 1982. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have to clear the departmental examination for becoming eligible for the higher grade scale.
3. Initially, by various orders, all the petitioners were granted first higher grade scale after completion of 9 years of service from the date of appointment under the Resolution dated 16.8.1994. The State Government thereafter passed the Resolution dated 25.7.2002 stating that Mukhya Sevikas like the petitioners shall Page 6 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 be granted the first higher grade scale from the date of passing the first departmental examination. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, respondents No.2 and 3 passed the consequent orders modifying the orders of higher grade scales. The petitioners were granted the first higher grade scale from the date of passing the examination instead of from the date of appointment.
4. Mr.Supehia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the aforesaid Resolution dated 25.7.2002 and the consequential orders passed by the respondents are liable to be set aside since the departmental examination for the first time was held in September 1993 and all the petitioners had become eligible for the first higher grade scale on completion of 9 years in service prior to holding the departmental examination and accordingly they were rightly granted the first higher grade scale after completion of 9 years of service. He relied upon the order dated 28.01.2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.663 of 2000 confirming the judgment dated 06.08.1999 passed in SCA No.8181 of 1998. He stated that the aforesaid judgment squarely covered the Page 7 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 present cases since it deals with similar issue of higher grade scale and passing of departmental examination by Mykhya Sevikas for the post of Child Development Project (Female) under the Gujarat Public Health Service Examination Rules, 1993.
6. It is clear that the controversy has arisen from requirement of passing the departmental examination meant for the promotion to the post of Child Development Project (Female) Officer. It is undisputed that passing of the departmental examination is sine qua non for grant of higher grade scale. It is also not disputed that such departmental examination was held for the first time in the year 1993 and all the petitioners had become eligible for the first higher grade scale prior to holding of such examination. The respondents at the relevant time had also granted the benefit of the first higher grade scale counting their nine years service from the date of appointment. Thus, the petitioners were not at fault, but the lapse on the part of respondents in not holding the examinations in time pursuant to the relevant rules caused the problem. The petitioners were rightly granted benefit of the higher grade scale Page 8 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 after completion of nine years of service at the relevant time and they cannot be deprived of that benefit for voluntary act of the respondents in not holding the examination before the petitioners became eligible. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before retrospectively withdrawing the benefit of higher pay scale given to them.
7. For the above reasons, the petitions are allowed, the impugned orders modifying the higher grade scale to the petitioners and for effecting recovery are set aside and the earlier orders by which the petitioners were granted the first higher grade scales after completion of

9 years in service are restored with direction to grant them the consequent benefits. Monetary benefits due to the petitioner under this order shall be paid to the petitioners within three months from today."

8.1 What is also brought on record is that the government by a resolution dated 04.12.2013 extended the benefits of the higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 to certain Mukhya Sevikas, as is evident from the annexure to the resolution of the government dated 04.12.2013. Perusal of the Page 9 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 annexure would indicate that in cases where the Mukhya Sevikas were appointed in the years 1982- 83 and had completed 9 years of service in 1992- 93 were extended the benefits of the higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500.

9. What is more important now is to consider the decision rendered by this court in SCA No. 2902 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015, which in the perception of the respondent government, while discussing the impugned order which is under challenge by these petitioners, did not in fact in principle on merits grant the benefit of higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 to those petitioners but only retained the pay scale in their favour as the recovery was made after 13 years. We shall refer to the decision of this court in SCA No. 2902 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the entire order.

"Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.
2. Since all these petitions involve identical questions of fact, they are being decided together.
3. The facts necessary for adjudication are drawn from Special Civil Application No. 2902 Page 10 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 of 2015. The petitioners are serving as Child Development Officers. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 16 are serving whereas petitioner Nos. 17 to 22 have retired. They have been granted higher pay scale from the date of their passing the departmental examination.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that by virtue of the order dated 22.12.2014, the respondent reduced the first higher pay scale to Rs. 1640-2900 from Rs. 2000-3500 giving effect to the Resolutions of the Government dated 16.8.1994 and 2.7.2007. It is the case of the petitioners that there is extra cadre between Mukhya Sevika and Child Development Project Officer. Moreover, similarly situated petitioners had approached this Court by way of preferring Special Civil Application No. 8181 of 1998 in this Court . This Court vide judgement reported in 2001(1) GCD 181 directed the respondent authorities to consider the case on having found that Gujarat Public Health Examination Rules, 1993 have come into force after the date of the petitioners already completed 9 years of service in the feeder cadre and hence held that the respondents could not have insisted on passing the examination. The Court also noted that Notification/Rules is dated 14.1.1993 and in any Page 11 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 eventuality, the publication in the Official Gazette would not have been possible before 14.1.1993.
The petitioners, therefore, in all these petitions have sought for the following relief:
(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dt.

22.12.2014 reducing the first higher pay scale of the petitioners to Rs. 1640-2900 and further directing respondents to modify the said order by granting the higher pay scale of Rs. 2000- 3500 to the petitioners from the respective dates mentioned therein, with all consequential benefits.

(B) Directing the respondents to grant second higher pay scale to the petitioners as per resolution dt. 2.7.2007 and, revise their pay scale and grant arrears accordingly. (C) During the pendecny and final disposal of this petition, the respondent No. 1 may be restrained from reducing the higher pay scale of the petitioners from Rs. 2000-3500 to 1640- 2900.

5. Affidavit in reply filed by respondent No. 1

Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Women and Child Development Department, contains that the issue involved in this petition is in a narrow compass as to what should be Page 12 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 higher pay scale of the petitioners as per schedule-I. Should it be Rs. 1640-2900 or as promotional post Rs. 2000-3500 and the date on which such benefit should be made available to the petitioners, the same should be on completion of 9 years or on the date of passing of the examination. A contention is also raised that combined reading of Rule 1983 CDPO Recruitment Rules and 1989 CDPO Recruitment Rules when read with the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 of the Finance Department, would indicate that a person is not stagnated at the maximum stage in the grade and if there is no chance or limited chance of promotion during his service then only at the regular interval he is entitled to the higher grade scale. It is further contended that as per clause 3(3) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, higher grade scale available to a particular post shall be the higher grade scale provided in the said Government Resolution. The same needs to correspond with the scale which is available in the feeder cadre. Clause 3(8) of the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and clause 2(17) of Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 when combined state that where after the higher grade scale scheme Page 13 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 has come into force in the recruitment Rules and if the new posts come into existence, such clause would be applicable. Earlier there were four cadres. Therefore, the higher grade scale prescribed in schedule-I would be as per clause 3(3). However, with the change in the higher grade pay scale from 1989 Recruitment Rules, there would be a change as per schedule-I and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale as has been decided by the impugned order. It is also their stand that in umpteen number of matters, the issue of grant of higher grade scale to the employees has come before this Court and it has been held and observed that on completion of 9 years of period, the benefits should be allowed and it cannot be from the date of passing of examination. It is also the say of the respondent that the impugned order of fixing pay scale of the petitioners is of giving higher grade scale as per schedule i.e. Rs. 1640- 2900 and not of promotional post which is of Child Development Project Officer Rs. 2000- 3500.

5. Rejoinder affidavit is also filed. Both sides have been heard at length and the decision rendered by this Court on earlier occasion along with decision in Letters Patent Appeal have also Page 14 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 been considered. The issue eventually lies in a narrow compass. As to what higher pay scale the petitioner is entitled to, whether Rs. 1640- 2900 or Rs. 2000-3500 and on which dates this benefit would accrue, whether on completion of 9 years or on the date of passing of examination? Admittedly, the petitioners were granted higher pay scale vide order dated 25.7.2002 which is sought to be altered after a period of 13 years. The same was subject to verification of the Audit and various scrutiny at different level in all these years have been made. Some of the petitioners have already retired from service and the impugned order will also reduce the pension and retirement benefits.

6. It is a matter of record that in case of Mukhya Sevika, grant of higher pay scale is from the date of passing of the departmental examination. In the very first judgement dated 6.8.1999 in Special Civil Application No. 8181 of 1998 the Court has made reference to higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500. The State never objected to grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 since 1999.

7. As it can be noticed in the case of P.G. Vyas v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2000(1) GCD Page 15 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 181 two of the petitioners were serving as Assistant Child Development Project Officer and one was serving as Mukhya Sevika under the Mehsana District Panchayat. On completion of 9 years of their service in the cadre as per the higher pay scale benefit, they demanded scale of Rs. 2000-3500 but the same had been refuted only on the ground that they have not cleared departmental examination for promotion to higher post in the channel of promotion from the feeder cadre.

8. The Court found sufficient merits in the submission of the petitioners which was not strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondents that the Child Development Project (Female) in the Gujarat Public Health Service Examination Rules, 1993, have come into force after the date on which the petitioners have had already completed 9 years in the feeder cadre and the respondents could not have insisted on passing the examination to make themselves eligible for the benefits of the higher pay scale. The Court also found from the Rules that they were brought into force from the date of their publication in the official gazette which was on 14.1.1993. This was the only ground on which the petitioners were denied the benefits of Page 16 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 higher pay scale which was not found sustainable. The Court, therefore, directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for higher pay scale as per the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and if they are found eligible and entitled for the benefits, they should be given the same as if they have been available to them under the Government Resolution. This order came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in the following manner:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties. Single Judge has ordered that those employees who have completed 9 years prior to 14.1.1993 the day when the Rules came into force wherein the eligibility of passing the examination was made as condition, should be granted benefit of higher pay scale. Therefore, we do not see any illegality in the order passed by learned Single Judge for the simple reason that the Rules have come into force on 14.1.1993 and they have not been made retrospective. That being the position any person who has acquired rights prior to this date will have to be conferred with those benefits. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any illegality has been committed by learned Page 17 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 Single Judge in directing the respondents to grant Higher Pay Scale to those employees of the category which learned Single Judge has prescribed in the judgement. There is no substance in the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed accordingly."

9. The very issue of grant of higher pay scale with another facet was also before this Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 324 of 2010, 325 of 2010, 489 of 2010 and 487 of 2010 where this Court on 18.2.2010 decided the petitions by holding that the first higher grade scale granted to the petitioners counting their 9 years of service from the date of their appointment was a valid action as the petitioners were not at fault if the examinations were not held. It is to be noted that vide order dated 30.10.2010 those petitioners have already been availed first higher pay scale by virtue of decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application Nos. 324 of 2010 and allied matters and that too while they were working on the post of Mukhya Sevikas Class-III.

10. The only issue that requires deliberation is of clause 3(3) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 since there are four feeder cadre posts, Page 18 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 according to the respondents, to the promotional post of Child Development Officer. It is also contended that in 1989 CDPO Recruitment Rules, there is only one feeder cadre post i.e. Mukhya Sevika.

10.1 The Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) (Female) in the Gujarat Public Health Recruitment Rules, 1989, provides for appointment to the post of Child Development Officer which is made by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons who have worked for not less than seven years as Mukhya Sevika in the Integrated Child Development Service Block and Nutrition Programme sponsored by the Government of India or the State Government or by direct selection or by temporary transfer on deputation basis from a suitable officer working in the cadre of Gujarat Development Service Class-II of the Panchayat and Rural Housing Development or District Social Defence Officer Class-II of the Social Defence Department. It is further provided for requisite qualifications and age if the selection is to be made by direct selection.

Page 19 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022

C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 10.2 Along with this, if Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 is taken into consideration it provides for higher pay scale on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service instead of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service.

10.3 Rule 2(17) provides that a person fetching higher pay scale meant to be promotional scale before 1.6.1987 shall continue to fetch the same. A combined reading of clause 3(8) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and clause 2(17) of the Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 shows that after higher grade scale has come into effect, if any change in the hierarchy has been brought by the Government in the Recruitment Rules and as a result of that change, new post has come into existence or the hierarchy of the post has changed, then, the said clause would have no applicability. This combined reading would have bearing on the case of the petitioners and subsequent change of hierarchy may not affect their entitlement.

10.4 In the Recruitment Rules of 1989, according to the respondents, a change in promotional hierarchy has come into being with four cadres as per clause 3(3) for higher grade scale as Page 20 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 prescribed in Schedule-I and the same is sought to be applied in case of the petitioners.

10.5 As noted above, in case, other similarly situated persons following decision of this Court rendered not only in the year 1999 but later on in Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2010 vide order dated 18.2.2010, the first higher pay scale Rs. 2000-3500 has been granted. The petitioners herein were Child Development Project (Female) Officers who have retired in the year 2009 and they were all appointed as Mukhya Sevika between 1976 and 1982. Some of them already retired were granted Rs. 2000-3500 for more than 13 years. To employ 1989 CDPO Recruitment Rules and to set at naught grant of higher pay scale would not be in consonance with the decision rendered time and again by this Court.

11. All these petitions are allowed. They shall be paid their respective dues within four (4) weeks of receipt of copy of this order. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly."

9.1 What is considered in the aforesaid order would indicate that in the said matter an affidavit- in-reply was filed by the State wherein a Page 21 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 contention was raised that on a combined reading of Rules 1983 and 1989 when read with the government resolution dated 16.08.1994, the higher pay scale needs to correspond taking into contention clauses 3(3) and 3(8) of the Government Resolution dated 06.08.1994 and clause 2(17) of the resolution dated 02.07.2007. On hearing both the sides, the court found that there is sufficient merit in the submission of the petitioners in holding that they are entitled to the benefit of the higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. That the court even on merits considered their case and in no uncertain terms held that the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 was the pay scale that the petitioners were entitled to is evident on reading para 10 to 10.5 of the order of the co-ordinate bench. At the cost of repetition, paras 5, 6 and paras 10.1 to 10.5 is reproduced hereinbelow.

"5. Affidavit in reply filed by respondent No. 1 Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Women and Child Development Department, contains that the issue involved in this petition is in a narrow compass as to what should be higher pay scale of the petitioners as per schedule-I. Should it be Rs. 1640-2900 or as Page 22 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 promotional post Rs. 2000-3500 and the date on which such benefit should be made available to the petitioners, the same should be on completion of 9 years or on the date of passing of the examination. A contention is also raised that combined reading of Rule 1983 CDPO Recruitment Rules and 1989 CDPO Recruitment Rules when read with the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 of the Finance Department, would indicate that a person is not stagnated at the maximum stage in the grade and if there is no chance or limited chance of promotion during his service then only at the regular interval he is entitled to the higher grade scale. It is further contended that as per clause 3(3) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, higher grade scale available to a particular post shall be the higher grade scale provided in the said Government Resolution. The same needs to correspond with the scale which is available in the feeder cadre. Clause 3(8) of the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and clause 2(17) of Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 when combined state that Page 23 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 where after the higher grade scale scheme has come into force in the recruitment Rules and if the new posts come into existence, such clause would be applicable. Earlier there were four cadres. Therefore, the higher grade scale prescribed in schedule-I would be as per clause 3(3). However, with the change in the higher grade pay scale from 1989 Recruitment Rules, there would be a change as per schedule-I and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale as has been decided by the impugned order. It is also their stand that in umpteen number of matters, the issue of grant of higher grade scale to the employees has come before this Court and it has been held and observed that on completion of 9 years of period, the benefits should be allowed and it cannot be from the date of passing of examination. It is also the say of the respondent that the impugned order of fixing pay scale of the petitioners is of giving higher grade scale as per schedule i.e. Rs. 1640-2900 and not of promotional post which is of Child Development Project Officer Rs. 2000-3500.
Page 24 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022
C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022
5. Rejoinder affidavit is also filed. Both sides have been heard at length and the decision rendered by this Court on earlier occasion along with decision in Letters Patent Appeal have also been considered. The issue eventually lies in a narrow compass. As to what higher pay scale the petitioner is entitled to, whether Rs. 1640- 2900 or Rs. 2000-3500 and on which dates this benefit would accrue, whether on completion of 9 years or on the date of passing of examination? Admittedly, the petitioners were granted higher pay scale vide order dated 25.7.2002 which is sought to be altered after a period of 13 years. The same was subject to verification of the Audit and various scrutiny at different level in all these years have been made. Some of the petitioners have already retired from service and the impugned order will also reduce the pension and retirement benefits.
6. It is a matter of record that in case of Mukhya Sevika, grant of higher pay scale is from the date of passing of the departmental examination. In the very first judgement dated 6.8.1999 in Special Civil Page 25 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 Application No. 8181 of 1998 the Court has made reference to higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500. The State never objected to grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 since 1999.

10. The only issue that requires deliberation is of clause 3(3) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 since there are four feeder cadre posts, according to the respondents, to the promotional post of Child Development Officer. It is also contended that in 1989 CDPO Recruitment Rules, there is only one feeder cadre post i.e. Mukhya Sevika.

10.1 The Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) (Female) in the Gujarat Public Health Recruitment Rules, 1989, provides for appointment to the post of Child Development Officer which is made by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons who have worked for not less than seven years as Mukhya Sevika in the Integrated Child Development Service Block and Nutrition Programme sponsored by the Government Page 26 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 of India or the State Government or by direct selection or by temporary transfer on deputation basis from a suitable officer working in the cadre of Gujarat Development Service Class-II of the Panchayat and Rural Housing Development or District Social Defence Officer Class-II of the Social Defence Department. It is further provided for requisite qualifications and age if the selection is to be made by direct selection.

10.2 Along with this, if Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 is taken into consideration it provides for higher pay scale on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service instead of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service.

10.3 Rule 2(17) provides that a person fetching higher pay scale meant to be promotional scale before 1.6.1987 shall continue to fetch the same. A combined reading of clause 3(8) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and clause 2(17) of the Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 shows that after higher grade Page 27 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 scale has come into effect, if any change in the hierarchy has been brought by the Government in the Recruitment Rules and as a result of that change, new post has come into existence or the hierarchy of the post has changed, then, the said clause would have no applicability. This combined reading would have bearing on the case of the petitioners and subsequent change of hierarchy may not affect their entitlement.

10.4 In the Recruitment Rules of 1989, according to the respondents, a change in promotional hierarchy has come into being with four cadres as per clause 3(3) for higher grade scale as prescribed in Schedule-I and the same is sought to be applied in case of the petitioners.

10.5 As noted above, in case, other similarly situated persons following decision of this Court rendered not only in the year 1999 but later on in Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2010 vide order dated 18.2.2010, the first higher pay scale Rs. 2000-3500 has been granted. The petitioners herein were Child Development Project (Female) Page 28 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 Officers who have retired in the year 2009 and they were all appointed as Mukhya Sevika between 1976 and 1982. Some of them already retired were granted Rs. 2000-3500 for more than 13 years. To employ 1989 CDPO Recruitment Rules and to set at naught grant of higher pay scale would not be in consonance with the decision rendered time and again by this Court."

9.2 That decision of the co-ordinate bench of this court was carried in appeal by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 211 of 2017. The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 09.02.2017. The order reads as under:

"1. These appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellants-original respondents against a common oral order dated 17.12.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2902 of 2015 and allied matters, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions.
2. As the question involved in these appeals is similar and the impugned order is common in all Page 29 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 the petitions, these appeals are disposed off by this common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated and referred in Special Civil Application No.2902 of 2015 are recorded in this order. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner nos.1 to 16 are serving as Child Development Officers whereas petitioner nos.17 to 22 have retired. All the petitioners were granted the first higher grade scale of Rs.2000- 3500 vide order dated 25.7.2002. However, by an order dated 22.12.2014, the respondent no.1 reduced the first higher grade scale of the petitioners from Rs.2000-3500 to Rs.1640-2900 relying upon the Government Resolutions dated 16.8.1994 and 2.7.2007. The petitioners, therefore, filed the captioned petitions wherein the petitioners prayed for the following reliefs:
14(A) Quashing and setting aside the Order dt.22.12.2014 reducing the first higher pay scale of the petitioners to Rs.1640-2900 and further directing respondents to modify the said order by granting the higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 to the petitioners from the Page 30 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 respective dates mentioned therein, with all consequential benefits.
B) Directing the respondents to grant second higher pay scale to the petitioners as per resolution dt.2.7.2007 and, revise their pay scale and grant arrears accordingly. C)During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the respondent no.1 may be restrained from reducing the higher pay scale of the petitioners from Rs.2000-3500 to 1640- 2900.
D) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.

Similar other petitions were also filed as observed hereinabove seeking grant of higher grade scale of Rs.2000-3500 to the concerned petitioners from the respective dates.

4. Learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 allowed the petitions and thereby directed the respondents to pay the higher grade scale within stipulated time limit. The original respondents-appellants herein therefore filed the present appeals.

Page 31 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022

C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022

5. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Devnani for the appellants-original respondents and learned advocate Mr.Sharma appearing for the present respondents-original petitioners.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the State Government issued Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 for grant of higher grade scale to the government employees on terms and conditions stipulated in the said resolution. It is contended that the government has decided to give such benefit on account of various factors such as non-availability of promotional avenues because of less number of posts and the person who is working since years on one post may not be stagnated. However, such benefit is to be extended after considering the various aspects like feeder cadre, next promotional post, recruitment rules, passing of departmental examination and various other factors stipulated in Government Resolutions dated 16.8.1994 as well as 2.7.2007.

7. It is contended that before the Gujarat Public Health Recruitment Rules of 1989 were framed, Rules of 1983 were in force and there were four Page 32 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 feedre cadre to the post of Child Development Project Officer Class II. Such feeder cadres were (1) Public Health Nurse, (2) Social Worker (Family Welfare), (3) Block Extension Educator/District Extension Educator and (4) Mukhya Sevika. However, in view of the introduction of new recruitment rules, the only feeder cadre for the promotional post of Child Development Officer Class II is that of Mukhya Sevika. The said rules were introduced in the year 1989. It is submitted that as per Clause 3(3) read with Clause 3(8) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 along with schedule appended to the said resolution, the higher grade scale which was available to the original petitioners as per their prevalent scale would be of Rs.1640-2900 and not Rs.2000-3500.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as there is no promotional post of Mukhya Sevika, pay scale prescribed in Schedule I of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 would be applicable to the case of the petitioners and therefore when it was noticed that the present appellants have wrongly granted the benefit of pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, such benefit was decided to be withdrawn.

Page 33 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022

C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022

9. It is further contended that as per the recruitment rules of 1989, the original petitioners were also required to pass departmental examination, however, they failed to pass such examination and therefore as per the provision contained in Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, the benefit of higher grade scale was withdrawn and not granted to the concerned petitioners and therefore no illegality was committed by the present appellants. In spite of that the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the petitions and given direction to the present appellants to accord the benefit of higher grade scale as stipulated in Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 as well as 2.7.2007. At this stage, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that when the higher grade scale was granted to the petitioners by order dated 25.7.2002, the same was subject to audit objection and while granting such benefit, the necessary undertaking were given by the concerned petitioners, that such benefit is given to them subject to audit objection. It is submitted that when it is revealed that such benefits were granted by mistake, such benefits can be withdrawn. It is, therefore, submitted that the Page 34 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.

10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance upon the order dated 29.7.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. v/s Jagdev Singh decided in Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006.

11. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Sharma appearing for the original petitioners supported the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and contended that the petitioners were granted higher grade scale vide order dated 25.7.2002 as they have completed nine years of service in the cadre of Mukhya Sevika on a given date which is annexed with the order dated 25.7.2002. It is further submitted that Child Development Project (Female) in the Gujarat Public Service Examination Rules of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1993') came into force in the year 1993 from the date of their publication in the official gazette on 14.1.1993, before which the concerned petitioners have completed nine years of service.

Page 35 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022

C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022

12. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr.Sharma that in similar type of cases, this Court has passed orders from time to time which are referred by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. One of such order passed by the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore learned Single Judge has not committed any error while allowing the petitions and directing the present appellants to grant the benefit of higher grade scale as per Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and 2.7.2007.

13. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned advocates and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged from the record that the concerned original petitioners were appointed as Mukhya Sevika who have completed nine years of service before the Rules of 1993 came into force on 14.1.1993. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per the recruitment rules, for the appointment to the post of Child Development Officer which is made by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons who have worked for not less than seven years as Mukhya Sevika in the integrated Child Page 36 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 Development Service Block and Nutrition Programme sponsored by the Government of India or the State Government or by direct selection or by temporary transfer on deputation basis from a suitable officer working in the cadre of Gujarat Development Service Class II of the Panchayat and Rural Housing development or District Social Defence Officer Class II of the Social Defence Department. Thus, post of Child Development Officer is a promotional post of Mukhya Sevika.

14. At this stage, we would like to refer to Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 which provides as under:

3(3) Higher Grade Scale means the scale of pay of the post of next promotion, provided that for the employees on posts having more than one promotional post in different scales of pay their pay of Higher Grade Scale shall be considered the pay of the pay scale of the lowest of the promotional posts.
Provided further that in the case where there is no promotional scale, the H.G.S.shall be the Higher Grade Scale corresponding to his existing scale of Page 37 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 pay as specified in Schedule (1) annexed to this Government Resolution.
Provided further that in case of posts with feeder cadres in different pay scales, instead of promotional scale, the Higher Grade Scales of such posts shall be higher grade scale corresponding to his existing scale of pay as specified in Schedule(1) annexed to this Government Resolution.
15. Clause 3(7) of Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 provides as under:
In case of interrupted promotion, if the period of such promotion is taken into account for the purpose of increment, it will be considered for the service of lower cadre for eligibility of Higher Grade Scale provided that such service in higher cadre (on the post of promotion) shall not be considered.
16. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that the Rules of 1993 have come into force after the date on which the petitioners have completed nine years in the feeder cadre and therefore the respondents could not have insisted on passing of Page 38 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 examination to make themselves eligible for the benefits of the higher grade scale. In similar matter decided by learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and allied matters, it has been observed by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:
6. It is clear that the controversy has arisen from requirement of passing the departmental examination meant for the promotion to the post of Child Development Project (Female) Officer. It is undisputed that passing of the departmental examination is sine qua non for grant of higher grade scale. It is also not disputed that such departmental examination was held for the first time in the year 1993 and all the petitioners had become eligible for the first higher grade scale prior to holding of such examination. The respondents at the relevant time had also granted the benefit of the first higher grade scale counting their nine years service from the date of appointment. Thus, the petitioners were not at fault, but the lapse on the part of respondents in not holding the examinations in time pursuant to the relevant rules caused the problem. The petitioners were rightly granted benefit of the Page 39 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 higher grade scale after completion of nine years of service at the relevant time and they cannot be deprived of that benefit for voluntary act of the respondents in not holding the examination before the petitioners became eligible. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before retrospectively withdrawing the benefit of higher pay scale given to them.
7. For the above reasons, the petitions are allowed, the impugned orders modifying the higher grade scale to the petitioners and for effecting recovery are set aside and the earlier orders by which the petitioners were granted the first higher grade scales after completion of 9 years in service are restored with direction to grant them the consequent benefits. Monetary benefits due to the petitioner under this order shall be paid to the petitioners within three months from today.

17. It is not in dispute that the appellants have granted the benefit of higher grade scale as per the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid matter.

Page 40 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022

C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022

18. Thus, we are of the view that the original petitioners were not required to pass the departmental examination in pursuance to the Rules of 1993 as they have completed nine years of service before such rules came into force.

19. As observed hereinabove, initially there were four feeder cadre posts to the promotional posts of Child Development Officer and after the recruitment rules of 1989 were framed there is only one feeder cadre post i.e. Mukhya Sevika. Thus, it is not in dispute that post of Child Development Officer is a promotional post and feeder cadre is Mukhya Sevika. Thus, in view of clause 3(3) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, the original petitioners were eligible to get the higher grade scale of the promotional post which was rightly granted to them. Thus, we are of the view that no mistake was committed by the original respondent-present appellants while granting the benefit of higher grade scale to the petitioners and therefore withdrawal of the same after a period of 13 years is not permissible. It is reported that some of the original petitioners who were appointed during the period between 1976 to 1982 have already retired in the year 2009 and Page 41 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 some of the petitioners are getting such benefit since the year 2002.

20. The decision upon which the reliance is placed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as no mistake was committed by the present appellants while according the benefit of higher grade scale to the concerned petitioners and therefore there is no question of recovery of such amount on the basis of the undertaking given by the concerned petitioners.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the petitions. Hence, the present appeals are not required to be entertained and accordingly the same are dismissed. As the appeals are dismissed, civil applications also stand dismissed."

9.3 A specific contention was raised by the government therein which is evident from paras 5 to 9 which are again reproduced hereinbelow:

Page 42 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022
C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 "5. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Devnani for the appellants-

original respondents and learned advocate Mr.Sharma appearing for the present respondents-original petitioners.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the State Government issued Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 for grant of higher grade scale to the government employees on terms and conditions stipulated in the said resolution. It is contended that the government has decided to give such benefit on account of various factors such as non- availability of promotional avenues because of less number of posts and the person who is working since years on one post may not be stagnated. However, such benefit is to be extended after considering the various aspects like feeder cadre, next promotional post, recruitment rules, passing of departmental examination and various other factors stipulated in Government Resolutions dated 16.8.1994 as well as 2.7.2007.

7. It is contended that before the Gujarat Public Health Recruitment Rules of 1989 Page 43 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 were framed, Rules of 1983 were in force and there were four feedre cadre to the post of Child Development Project Officer Class II. Such feeder cadres were (1) Public Health Nurse, (2) Social Worker (Family Welfare), (3) Block Extension Educator/District Extension Educator and (4) Mukhya Sevika. However, in view of the introduction of new recruitment rules, the only feeder cadre for the promotional post of Child Development Officer Class II is that of Mukhya Sevika. The said rules were introduced in the year 1989. It is submitted that as per Clause 3(3) read with Clause 3(8) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 along with schedule appended to the said resolution, the higher grade scale which was available to the original petitioners as per their prevalent scale would be of Rs.1640-2900 and not Rs.2000-3500.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as there is no promotional post of Mukhya Sevika, pay scale prescribed in Schedule I of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 would be applicable to the case of the petitioners and therefore when it was Page 44 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 noticed that the present appellants have wrongly granted the benefit of pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, such benefit was decided to be withdrawn.

9. It is further contended that as per the recruitment rules of 1989, the original petitioners were also required to pass departmental examination, however, they failed to pass such examination and therefore as per the provision contained in Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, the benefit of higher grade scale was withdrawn and not granted to the concerned petitioners and therefore no illegality was committed by the present appellants. In spite of that the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the petitions and given direction to the present appellants to accord the benefit of higher grade scale as stipulated in Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 as well as 2.7.2007. At this stage, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that when the higher grade scale was granted to the petitioners by order dated 25.7.2002, the same was subject to audit objection and while granting such benefit, the necessary Page 45 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 undertaking were given by the concerned petitioners, that such benefit is given to them subject to audit objection. It is submitted that when it is revealed that such benefits were granted by mistake, such benefits can be withdrawn. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside."

7. [Emphasis Supplied] 9.4 Therefore, what is evident on reading the contentions raised by learned AGP in those proceedings as well as in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge when read in context of the impugned order would indicate that the stand of the government in denying the benefits of Rs.2000-3500 was the same consideration and a matter of opposition by the State then. It was in that context that the court disregarded that contention while referring to clauses 3(3) and 3(7) of the resolution dated 16.08.1994. Even the contention of the four feeder cadres and the subsequent change in the rules was also considered in para 19 reproduced hereinbelow as observed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 211 of 2017.

Page 46 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022

C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 "19. As observed hereinabove, initially there were four feeder cadre posts to the promotional posts of Child Development Officer and after the recruitment rules of 1989 were framed there is only one feeder cadre post i.e. Mukhya Sevika. Thus, it is not in dispute that post of Child Development Officer is a promotional post and feeder cadre is Mukhya Sevika. Thus, in view of clause 3(3) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, the original petitioners were eligible to get the higher grade scale of the promotional post which was rightly granted to them. Thus, we are of the view that no mistake was committed by the original respondent-present appellants while granting the benefit of higher grade scale to the petitioners and therefore withdrawal of the same after a period of 13 years is not permissible. It is reported that some of the original petitioners who were appointed during the period between 1976 to 1982 have already retired in the year 2009 and some of the petitioners are getting such benefit since the year 2002."

10. Having therefore considered these issues what is clearly evident from the relevant reproductions of the line of decisions of this court Page 47 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 is that it is not open for the authorities now to reiterate the same objections in case of the present petitioners, which were taken by them in the earlier rounds of litigation, especially in the oral order dated 07.12.2015 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal vide oral order dated 09.02.2017. The stand of the State in the impugned orders holding that the decision in the case of SCA No. 2902 of 2015 would not apply to the facts of the case is a stand which deserves to be rejected, when all these very contentions were considered by the judgment of the court in the order of SCA No. 2902 of 2015 so confirmed in LPA No. 211 of 2017.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, all the petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the first higher pay scale i.e. Rs.2000-3500 on completion of 9 years of service from the date of petitioners' respective date of appointment and all consequential benefits that the petitioners would be entitled to shall follow based on this direction. The entire exercise of giving them the benefits of the payscale of Rs.2000-3500 and consequential benefits shall be done within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this court.

Page 48 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022

C/SCA/8511/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2022 Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs." ..."

7. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the first higher pay scale i.e. Rs.2000-3500 on completion of 9 years of service from the date of petitioner's date of appointment and all consequential benefits including consequential retiral benefits that the petitioner would be entitled to shall follow based on this direction. The entire exercise of giving him the benefits of the payscale of Rs.2000-3500 and consequential benefits including retiral benefits shall be done within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this court. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 49 of 49 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 15 21:02:34 IST 2022