The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of higher pay scale for Child Development Project Officers based on the 1983 Recruitment Rules and the 16.08.1984 Government Resolution, and the interpretation of clause 3(3) of the resolution and the rules of 1993.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Soaham Joshi learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Harshal Pandya learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.4.

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

3. Ms.Himanshi Balodi learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.10493 of 2020 and submits that this matter will also be governed by the said decision.

4. Mr.Soaham Joshi learned AGP for the State would submit that based on the reply filed, it is evident that the benefit of the higher pay scale cannot be granted as a matter of entitlement. He would rely on the Recruitment Rules known as the Child Development Project Officer Recruitment Rules dated 16.10.1983 and submit that the higher pay scale has to be granted in accordance with the schedule of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1984.

5. Judgement rendered by this Court dated 03.10.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.10493 of 2020 reads as under:

“1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents.

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

3. Ms. Balodi, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on Common Oral Judgment passed in similar matter by this Court namely; Special Civil Application No.5526 of 2021 and allied matters dated 03.08.2022 so far as second higher pay scale. Moreover, in such judgment, reference of Special Civil Application No.5170 of 2019 dated 15.07.2022 which covers the issue of first higher pay scale. She further requested this Court to pass a similar order in this matter too. The order dated 03.08.2022 reads as under:

“1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.

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

3. These petitions pray for the benefit of second higher pay scale on completion of 24 years of service. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been granted the benefit of the first higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/-. The entitlement of the similarly situated petitioners who had not been granted the benefit of Rs.2000-3500/- as the first higher pay scale, has been decided by this Court by order dated 15.07.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.5170 of 2019 which order reads as under:

“1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.

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

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following prayer:

“(A) Directing the Respondents to grant higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 to the petitioners from the date of completion of nine years service and be pleased to direct the respondents to revise their pay and retiral benefits accordingly and grant the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

(B) Be further pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consequently grant second higher grade pay scale to the petitioners, having completed requisite length of service under Government Resolution dated 02-07-2007 with interest at 9% per annum, from the date of grant of first higher grade and not from the date of regular promotion to the post of Child Development Programme Officer.

(C) Be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix the pay and consequential benefits including the retiral benefits of the petitioners corresponding to 7th Pay Commission Report upon granting of aforesaid prayers.”

4. Facts of the petition indicate that the petitioners were servin