1. This group of petitions involves common questions of law inter alia as to whether the Government Servants, who retired before 01.01.2006 with higher grade pay-scales, can be paid a revised pension in terms of 6th Pay Commission, on the basis of post they held, though recommendation made by the 6th Pay Commission as accepted by the State recommended the revised pay-scales on scale to scale basis ?

2. The facts, in each of the petitions, are as under:

3. Special Civil Application Nos.13590/2013, 4106/2014, 15094/2013 and 15705/2013:

3.1 The petitioners are retired Lecturers (Selection Grade) who were employed with Grant-in-Aid Colleges/Government Colleges and University, State of Gujarat. They have been drawing regular pension as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission as per the Government Resolution dated 01.11.2000.

3.2 On 13.04.2009, the Government of Gujarat came out with a notification revising the pension of the pensioners. The said resolution is based upon the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission. According to the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, the pension for the pensioners, arrived at in accordance with the formula suggested therein, cannot be less than 50% of the basic pay plus the grade pay applicable to the post.

3.3 The petitioners were drawing the salary in the pay-scale of Rs.12,000-420-18,300 which was a selection grade equivalent to the grade attached to the post of Associate Professor as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. According to the petitioners, since the petitioners were in the higher grade pay-scale before 01.01.2006, their appropriate equivalent pay-scale, as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, is Rs.37,400-67,000 with the grade pay of Rs.9,000/-and thus they must get the pension at the rate of 50% of the basic pay i.e. Rs.37,400/-plus the grade pay i.e. Rs.9,000/-. Their claim is that thus Rs.23,200/-should be the revised pension.

3.4 It appears that the pension was fixed on the basis of Clause 9.2 contained in the resolution dated 13.04.2009 which prescribes the mode of calculation of the revised pension. The later portion of the said Clause 9.2 prescribes the procedure to be adopted by the Disbursing Authority on the lines of the resolution dated 01.11.2000 passed by the Finance Department to indicate the minimum pension/family pension corresponding to pre-2006 scales of pay as enclosed in Annexure-III to the resolution dated 13.04.2009. Resolution dated 01.11.2000 inter alia provides the procedure to be adopted for ascertaining the revised pension. It also contains a provision to exclude or ignore the higher grade pay-scales that pensioners might have earned and held immediately prior to 01.01.2006 for the purpose of ascertaining 50% of pension/family pension payable to the pensioners/his family.

3.5 The petitioners were not agreeable to the said formula and therefore, made representation dated 10.06.2013 claiming pension on the higher grade pay-scales, as recommended in the 6th Pay Commission. This was not acceded to by the State, and therefore, the petitions were filed.

3.6 The petitions were amended to challenge the resolution dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Finance Department of the State Government reiterating that pension of the pensioners, who retired before 01.01.2006, will be revised after excluding the senior scales, selection scales or higher pay-scales.

3.7 On various grounds, the petitioners seek a mandamus for a direction to the respondents to revise their pension, as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission. They also challenge the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the second respondent denying such revision of pension to the petitioners. They also seek a declaration that Clause 9.2 as contained in the resolution dated 01.11.2000 as also the resolution dated 26.02.2014 contemplating to take into consideration the pay attached to the post as violative of fundamental right of the petitioners. A further direction against the respondents to revise the pension