JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under :

"(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, by directing the respondents to grant the benefits of higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- to the petitioner after completion of 9 years of service i.e. 19.8.1991 instead of 28.11.1996 and grant her consequential revised retiral benefits accordingly.

(B) Be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to grant of Rs.2000-3500 instead of 1640-2900 as first higher grade pay scale from the date of completion of 9 years of service, and further higher grade scale on completion of requisite length of service in terms of government Resolutions governing grant of higher pay scale and accordingly revise her pay and retirement benefits with interest @ 9% per annum."

4. Heard Ms. Himanshi Balodi learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Kurven Desai learned AGP for the State.

5. This Court vide judgment order dated 02.02.2022 rendered in Special Civil Application No.6973 of 2020 has considered the issue in context of the prayer made in the petition, wherein, the petitioner has prayed for a higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- in stead of Rs.1640-2900/- from the date of completing nine years of service from her initial date of appointment.

6. The relevant paragraphs of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.6973 of 2019 read as under :

"7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and considering the dates of appointment on which the petitioners were appointed as Mukhya Sevikas which is evident from the schedule that the learned AGP has referred to in the affidavit-in-reply at Annexure R1, what clearly emerges is that the petitioners are appointed initially in the year 1982. A few of the petitioners were appointed in the year 1983, albeit, that would not make any difference for the reasons of this judgement. Admittedly, therefore, the petitioners had completed 9 years of service prior to the date when the rules for examinations were notified, namely Rule 8 of The Child Development Project Officer (Female), Gujarat Public Health Service Class-II Recruitment Rules. These rules were notified on 14.01.1993 and admittedly the petitioners had completed 9 years of service in the year 1991 or 1992 as the case may be.

7.1 Keeping this in mind, it is relevant that the decision first in point of time rendered by this court in Special Civil Application No. 8181 of 1998 needs to be referred to. The prayer of the petitioners therein was that they are entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. Considering the case of the petitioners, the court held that there was sufficient merit in the stand of the petitioners and the court opined that from the rules which have been brought into force from 14.01.1993, the petitioners are entitled to the first higher pay scale in the scale of Rs.2000-3500. The relevant portion of the decision dated 06.08.1999 is reproduced hereunder:

"I find sufficient merits in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and which is not strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondents that the Child Development Project (Female) in the Gujarat Public Health Service Examination Rules, 1993 have come into force after the date on which the petitioners have already completed 9 years in the feeder cadre and the respondents could not have insisted for passing of the examination by them to make themselves eligible for the benefits of the higher pay scale. From the Rules, aforesaid I find that they have brought into force from the date of their publication in the official gazette. The notification of those Rules is dated 14/1/1993 and in all the e