JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Samir B Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 03.03.2012, by which, the petitioner requested for the second higher grade scale due from 21.10.2004 which have been refused.

3. The facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was working as a Supervisor. His date of joining is 13.10.1980. The petitioner was granted the first higher pay scale on 21.10.1989. According to the petitioner, the second higher pay scale became due from 21.10.2004, but for a misconduct, the petitioner was faced with a penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect on 11.09.2001. On a representation made by the petitioner for benefit of being granted the second higher pay scale by the impugned order of 03.03.2012, the same has been rejected. The petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2018.

4. Mr. Samir Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the denial of the second higher pay scale is misconceived. He would submit that the resolution of 31.03.2005 on which re