Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 02.12.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12047/1994.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellants are working as Librarians Professional Assistants in the District Libraries at various places under the Education Department of the State Government. The appellants are possessing requisite qualifications for the post of Librarians/Professional Assistant. The appellants are getting the pay scale of Rs. 425-700, whereas, the Librarians working in the Colleges were given the higher pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 with effect from 1.1.1973 under the Government Resolution dated 6.10.1979. The appellants are in the same cadre working in the same department with identical nature of duties and functions and with the same responsibilities and in spite of the identical nature of duties, functions and the responsibilities, they have been denied the higher pay scale at par with the College Librarian. Therefore, the appellants have filed Special Civil Application No. 12047/1994 claiming the same benefits. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 02.12.1996, denied the pay-scale at par with the College Librarian, hence, this appeal.

3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions.

4. It is submitted that on the factual back ground, this is a fit case which is covered by the judgment of this court in the case of N.C. Patel & Ors. v. State & Ors., reported in (1983)2 GLR 1526, and a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 162 of 2002, wherein, the appeal preferred by the Director of Libraries, Central Library has been dismissed. It is submitted by Mr. Chauhan learned advocate that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellants are working as Librarians/Professional Assistants in the District Libraries at various places in the State of Gujarat under the Education Department and all the appellants are possessing the requisite qualifications for the post of Librarians/Professional Assistants as prescribed by the Government and discharging the same duties and functions with more responsibilities and are similarly situated at par with the College Librarians in all respects. It is submitted by Mr. Chauhan that the benefits of the Government resolution dated 06.10.1979 should have been extended to the appellants also.

5. As against this, the State has submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with. The subsequent affidavits showing the gradation are also perused by this Court. The Government framing recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Direction, Library Class-II is pressed into service in the fresh affidavit sworn by appellant No. 11.

6. Having heard the learned counsels and having perused all these decisions, the decision of the learned Single Judge, Annexure-K, and resolutions dated 24.12.1993 to 02.4.1994, also pressed into service. The Notification of 2002 is also brought on record by the appellants in this appeal.

7. It is required to be noted at this stage that the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal is, in fact, rendered in the group of three petitions being Special Civil Application No. 2473/1983, 2093/1986 and 12047/1994. The present appellants are the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 12047/1994 and their case is slightly different then the case of the petitioners of Special Civil Applications Nos. 2473/1983 and 2093/1986. The learned Single Judge has discussed elaborately in earlier two petitions in para 1 to 12 and has made reference to the proceedings of SCA No. 12047/1994 in para 13, inter alia, observing that the case of those petitioners was based upon the decision of this High Court in the case of Shri N.B. Patel in SCA No. 878/1984, confirmed in LPA No. 189/1986 on