JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 31.7.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10335 of 2021, the appellant - original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Heard Mr. Nigam D. Soni, learned counsel for Mr. Jayant P. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on advance copy, on behalf of the respondents.

3. By way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellant - original petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:

"a. Be pleased to admit this petition;

b. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dt. 28.4.1998 passed by the Respondent No. 3 dismissing the petitioner from the post of Armed Police Constable, Buckle No. 333, A-Company, State Reserve Police Force, Group-12, Gandhinagar.

c. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction direct the Respondent Authorities to grant back wages and arrears of pay and allowances and all consequential benefits including revision of pay etc.;

d. Pending admission/hearing/final disposal of the present matter, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 3 to provide copy of order of dismissal from service dt. 28.4.1998 passed against petitioner in the interest of justice.

e. Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper."

4. Various grounds were raised before the learned Single Judge and it was contended before the learned Single Judge that similarly situated 4 delinquents were ordered to be reinstated by this Court. It is also the case of the appellant that representations were made on 18.3.2021, 19.3.2021 and 24.3.2021, however, no reply was given.

4.1. Mr. Nigam Soni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, heavily relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1985) 2 SCC 648, more particularly the observations made by the Apex Court in Para 5 thereof. It was contended by Mr. Soni that not having given the benefit which is otherwise derived by other similarly situated persons would result into discrimination. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge has not considered the judgments of this Court rendered in SCA No. 2224 of 2012 as well as SCA No. 8087 of 2017. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by Mr. Soni that the Appeal requires consideration. Learned counsel further contended that in other cases, the order of dismissal has been converted into that of order of voluntary retirement which would give some financial benefit as a recourse to the appellant, who hails from poor strata.

5. Per contra, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has supported the impugned order and has contended that the Appeal is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed.

6. No other and further contentions and/or grounds are raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

7. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, certain admitted facts emerge from the record. According to the appellant, he is born on 1.4.1963 and has studied upto 9th standard. The record indicates that the appellant joined SRP Unit on 1.2.1983 and was allotted to Group-7, Nadiad for the purpose of acquiring training. The charge-sheet dated 2.12.1992 was issued against the appellant by respondent No. 3 for holding departmental inquiry into the charge, inter-alia, that at the time of appointment, the appellant has allegedly produced false school leaving certificate. It was also alleged that the real date of birth of the appellant is 1.4.1960 and as such, the appellant has failed in 8th standard. The Inquiry Report