JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking 1st and 2nd higher pay-scales from the year 1997 and 2012 respectively.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various judgments of this Court. He has placed reliance on the judgment dated 23.06.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9959 of 2017, the judgment dated 09.10.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13785 of 2013 and allied matters, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 22.03.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 40 of 2016 and allied appeals. He has submitted that all the judgments are pertaining to the respondent-Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1. The petitioners were appointed as Work Charge Clerks by Office Order No. 270 of 1983 dated 10.10.1983. In the year 1991, the appointment of the petitioners was declared to be irregular and as a result thereof, the petitioners were not allowed to take PWD training and examination.

3.2. In the year 1991, when the seniority list of the clerks was published, in the Remarks Column of the seniority list, it was stated that the original appointments of the petitioners were made after crossing the stipulated age limit. The petitioners thereafter started raising grievance that the decision of respondent nos. 2 and 3 declaring their appointment to be irregular was a mistake and the petitioners ought to be placed at appropriate serial numbers in the seniority list. Thereafter, the concerned authority vide letter dated 08.08.2012 requested the respondent no. 2 to remove the names of the present petitioners from the list of the irregular employees.

3.3. In the year 2013, by a letter dated 29.10.2013, the Superintendent Engineer recommended the case of the petitioners for giving the deemed date for extending the benefit. By a letter dated 09.12.2013 the Deputy Manager of respondent No. 2 sought an explanation from the Superintendent Engineer about the Officers whose negligence and mistake had caused financial loss to the petitioners. By a letter dated 18.01.2014 the Executive Engineer gave an explanation and stated that the responsible officers had retired and also requested that the petitioners may be given the benefit of being regular from the inception.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have retired from the service without getting any benefits of 1st and 2nd higher pay-scales. It is also submitted that since the similarly situated employees, who had approached this Court are conferred the aforesaid benefits; the same benefits may be given to the present petitioners from their due dates. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners would stand on better footing since the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have corrected their mistake and treated all the petitioners to be regular in 1988 by giving retrospective effect and in wake of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are entitled to both the higher pay-scales.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. A.R. Thacker appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, while placing reliance on the affidavit-in-reply, has submitted that the petitioners cannot be granted the higher pay-scales because their initial appointment was not legal and they were irregularly appointed. It is submitted that the petitioners are not fulfilling the condition of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and since they had not passed the department examination as prescribed in the aforesaid resolution, the petitioners are not entitled for the higher pay-scale.

6. This Court has perused the aforementioned judgments passed by this Court. It appears that similarly situated petitioners, who were denied the higher pay-scale on the identical ground had approached this Court claiming the higher pay-scales. The same objection was taken b