JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. Both the learned counsels for the parties agreed that the matters be taken up for final hearing and therefore the petitions are taken up for final hearing today.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Meet Thakkar learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. Though served none appears for respondent No.3.

3. By way of these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners working as Mukhya Sevikas have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 01.12.2018/14.02.2019 by which their case for considering and extending the benefits of the first higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 on completion of nine years of service from their initial date of appointment has been rejected.

4. For the purposes of the present judgment, facts of Special Civil Application No. 6973 of 2019 are referred to.

4.1. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Mukhya Sevika (Class-III) after due selection on 04.09.1982 and she has been performing the duties of Mukhya Sevika since then. The case of the petitioner is that she is entitled to the benefits of higher pay scale in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 after completion of nine years of service with effect from 04.09.1991. According to the petitioner, Rule 8 of the Child Development Project Officer (Female), Gujarat Public Health Service, Class II Recruitment Rules, 1993 provides that the health and Family Welfare Department shall hold examinations twice a year ordinarily in the months of June and December. No examinations were held till the year 1993 and before that date the petitioner had completed nine years of service and therefore the case of the petitioner is that she is entitled to the benefits of the higher grade scale of Rs. 2000-3500.

4.2. For the purposes of claiming this benefit, reliance is placed by the petitioner on several decisions of this court which according to the petitioner will govern her case namely it is the case of the petitioner that such an issue was decided first in point of time in SCA No. 8181 of 1998 by a judgment and order dated 06.08.1999. The order of the learned Single Judge then was confirmed as the appeal of the State Government was dismissed by an order dated 28.01.2010. Relevant extracts of the judgment have been relied upon by Mr. R.N. Singh, learned advocate for the petitioners.

5. Mr. R.N. Singh would submit that by an order dated 18.02.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2010 and allied matters, the issue was considered in light of the earlier decision and the Mukhya Sevikas who had approached the court then were directed to be granted the benefits of higher pay scale. Therein what was under challenge was resolution dated 25.07.2002 by which the higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 was withdrawn.

5.1. Mr. Singh would then invite the attention of the court to the oral order dated 17.12.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 2902 of 2015 wherein according to learned counsel's submission, after discussing and entering into the legality of the recovery orders passed in the case of Mukhya Sevikas who were granted the benefits of higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 and which was subsequently withdrawn, apart from holding that the recovery was misconceived, the court on merits found that Mukhya Sevikas on completion of nine years of service were entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500. According to Mr. Singh, if the impugned order in the present petition is perused, this court in the order dated 17.12.2015 had discussed the same issued which are held against the petitioners in the impugned order which is under challenge and reversed the stand of the State. That decision of the learned Single Judge was confirmed in LPA No. 211 of 2017 by order dated 09.02.2017. Mr. Singh would take the court to the reasoning of the Division Bench in light of the contentions raised by the government and on comparing the contentions in the impugn