JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

2. Since a common issue is involved in the captioned writ petitions, the same are heard and decided analogously by the common judgement.

3. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in recovering the amount of annual increments, which were wrongly granted to them. It is the case of the respondent- PGVCL/Company that since the petitioners, despite not having cleared the Professional Examination within a period of three years as per the regulations being General standing Order (GSO) No.195 dated 10.12.1968 and subsequent amendments, they were being paid increments, and when it was realized the recovery of amount paid pursuant to the increments was recovered.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Rathod appearing for the petitioners, upon instructions, has submitted that the impugned orders are required to be quashed since, subsequently, two of the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.1387 of 2017 and 1389 of 2017 have cleared the Professional Examination. He has submitted that the recovery initiated by the respondent-Company is without following due process of law and the same could not have been affected, without giving any prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is submitted that after lapse of so many years, it is not permissible for the respondent-Company to recover the amount of increment, which was paid to the petitioners.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Dave for the respondents has submitted that as per GSO dated 10.12.1968, the petitioners were required to pass Professional Examination within a period of three years from the date of their joining of the respondent- Company. While placing reliance on the Established Manual, the learned advocate has submitted that the Junior Engineers have to pass examination within the stipulated period of three years of the date of joining, failing which their increment is required to be stopped. He has submitted that thereafter, vide Circular dated 10.03.2004 issued by the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (G.E.B.), a decision was taken to withhold the increments in the case of Engineers, who have not passed the Professional examination till June, 2004. However, by the Circular issued on 10.05.2007 by the G.E.B., it was decided that the increment is in favour of those Engineers, who did not clear the Professional Examination shall be stopped till the Engineers pass the Professional Examination. Thus, he has submitted that it is the policy of the respondent-Company to stop the increments in case of not clearing the Professional Examination and only after clearing of such examination, the increments are released.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Dave has further placed reliance on the settlement arrived at between the Union of the petitioners and the respondent- Company under the provision of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) and while placing reliance on Clause-36, he has submitted that the same empowers the respondent- Company to recover any wrongful payment granted to its employees or officers. Thus, he has submitted that once the petitioners are parties to the settlement, they cannot file writ petitions challenging the action of the respondent-Company of recovering the amount of the increments, which were illegally paid to them. It is submitted that since the settlement under the provision of Section 2(p) of the I.D. Act have been made during conciliation proceedings, the petitioners are bound by the effect of such settlement and hence, the question of extending opportunity of hearing or prior notice does not arise before recovering the amount.

6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by the them.

7. It is not disputed that all the petitioners have not cleared the Professional Examination within a period of t