JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Krishna Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents Nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. Tulshi Savani, learned advocate for the respondent Chief officer, Una Nagarpalika, respondent No. 2.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to direct the respondent authorities to revise the pension of the petitioner as per sixth and seventh pay commission recommendations.

4. Facts are not in dispute, inasmuch as, the petitioners are widows of the erstwhile Municipality/Panchayat employees, who were serving with the Una Nagarpalika having been granted the benefits of pension as per the 5th Pay Commission recommendations. Therefore, the only prayer is that their pension be revised in accordance with the subsequent pay recommendations i.e. the 6th and 7th Pay Commission respectively.

5. Ms. Krishna Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioners, would rely on orders passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8608 of 2013 dated 29.01.2016. While considering the issue at hand, this Court allowed the petition with a direction which reads as under:

"10. Having thus heard both the sides and having found from the affidavits filed by the District Assistant Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, Junagadh, dated 28.1.2016, as also the affidavit of Una Nagar Palika by the Chief officer dated 21.1.2016, it is more than apparent that the State had continued to pay the amount of pension to all the petitioners. As far as the petitioners No. 3 and 5 are concerned, there has been a specific adjudication by this Court in the case of Special Civil Application No. 27283 of 2006, particularly paragraph No. 10 being relevant, it is produced hereinbelow:

"10. So far as, contention of the Municipality about non-availability of the sanctioned post of City Engineer is concerned, the petitioner came to be retired on 31st August, 2006 and before that Government Resolution dated 22.1.2004 issued by the department of Urban Development, State of Gujarat was in force which prescribed guidelines about minimum strength of the establishment of municipality and accordingly municipality was permitted to have two City Engineers and in a given case to seek approval of the Director and the State Government respectively even if an additional City Engineer was required other than sanctioned strength of the post in question. So far as, respondent municipality is concerned, the petitioner was the only City Engineer and, therefore, when two posts of City Engineer were included in the strength of the establishment of municipality as early as in 2004, it cannot be said that the petitioner was promoted contrary to the Government Resolution. At the same time respondent Municipality is directed to sent a proposal for formal sanction of post of City Engineer of Una Municipality within four weeks from the receipt of the order by this Court and upon receipt of such proposal of Municipality, the Director of Municipalities shall consider such proposal and pass appropriate order in accordance with law."

11. As far as the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are concerned, they had preferred Special Civil Applications No. 15517 of 2011 and 15518 of 2011. This Court (Coram: R.M. Chhaya, J.) having noted the order passed by the Director of Municipalities dated 31.1.2012 has disposed of both the matters. No challenge of the same has been made so far.

12. Even the State Government has chosen to pay pension to the petitioners although averred to have done mistakenly for the reason that the Chief officer has not placed the order of the Director of Municipalities before the Pension Payment authority. Be that as it may, it is for the State Government and the Nagar Palika to work out as to whether the State can recover such a