JUDGMENT :

V.M. SAHAI, J.

1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25th March, 2010 in Special Civil Applications. We have taken up for hearing these Appeals for final disposal. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 1774 of 2010 arising out of Special Civil Application No. 11923 of 2008 shall be treated as the leading Appeal.

2. The short factual matrix of this group of Appeals is that the respondents in the Appeals who were petitioners in the writ petitions were working with the Gujarat Maritime Board (for short “the Board”) which was constituted on 5th April, 1982 under the provisions of Section 3(2) of Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 (for short “the Act”). It was brought into force by the State Government from 5th April, 1982 by Port and Fisheries Department Notification dated 3rd April, 1982. The respondents in these Appeals were appointed when the Board was in existence. Since no service Regulations or Rules were framed by the State Government for the employees of the Board, therefore, the State Government issued a circular dated 16.4.1982 that the Government has decided that the Board should follow and continue the prevailing administrative/financial rules and regulations and about other matters, procedures, circulars, instructions, all schemes and approvals, subject to the provision of the Act from the date of formation of the Board, till the rules and regulations are framed by the Government. The service of the employees of the Board were governed by the administrative/financial Rules which were prevailing. All the employees who are before this Court were working as Tradesmen and they were granted first higher grade pay scale of the cadre of Foremen retrospectively from the date they completed nine years of service as Tradesman as stipulated in Government Resolution no. AOP-1091/3/M dated 5th July, 1991. The employees were although treated as Foremen by the Board.

2.1. In the year 2004, a scheme was framed by the Board for voluntary retirement. A large number of Foremen who are before this Court opted for voluntary retirement scheme. Their pay was fixed by the authorities and accordingly their pension was also fixed. Their voluntary retirements were also approved by the higher authorities of the Board. They have voluntarily retired from service in the year 2004 after following due procedure prescribed under the Scheme. They have been receiving pension as per their pension fixation. Some of the employees who are before this Court are still in service as Foreman and they had also been given first higher grade pay scale of Foreman after they completed nine years' service as Tradesman.

2.2. An order dated 2.9.2008 was passed by the Board withdrawing the first higher grade pay scale granted to its employees in the cadre of Foreman with retrospective effect from the year 1994 on the ground that the Tradesman were granted higher grade pay scale of the post of Foreman by mistake as next promotional post for the post of Tradesman was the post of Mistry. From the Post of Mistry, an employee is promoted on the post of Foreman. Therefore, the employees were entitled for first higher grade pay scale of the next promotional post of Mistry but they have wrongly been given higher grade pay scale of Foreman which was sought to be recovered by the appellants as excess amount had been paid to the employees under a mistake.

3. We have heard Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, Mr. B.B. Gogia, Mr. N.V. Anjaria and Mr. I.S. Supehia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has placed before us chronology of some of the important events alongwith annexure which we have accepted and treated part of the record of the App