The resolution dated 27.04.2011 will have no retrospective effect, and appointments made pursuant to the resolution dated 15.04.2010 will be governed by the conditions as mentioned therein.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. Mr. Gaurav Chudasama, learned counsel for the petitioners, places reliance on a decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 144 of 2019 to submit that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the aforesaid petition, which reads as under:

“1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Chudasama appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 16.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20873 of 2015, which is confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 28.01.2021 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 630 of 2020.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Chudasama for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is claiming the absorption in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200/- after completion of 2 years. He has submitted the case of the petitioner is denied by the respondents only while placing reliance on the resolutions dated 15.04.2010 and 27.04.2011, which are already considered by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Vidhya Sahayak on 23.06.2010 on a fixed pay of Rs. 4,500/-. He is claiming to be absorbed in the regular pay-scale after completion of 2 years.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Gaurav Chudasama for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner cannot be denied the absorption in full pay-scale despite the post having been fallen vacant because of the retirement of the employees.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Chauhan, while placing reliance on the affidavit, has submitted that the State Government has issued a resolution dated 15.04.2010 extending the benefit of regular pay-scale to those Vidhya Sahayak, who have completed minimum service of 2 years. It is submitted that thereafter another resolution dated 27.04.2011 was issued by the respondent no. 1 stating that such benefit of regular pay-scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200/- would be available after completion of 5 years. Thus, he has submitted that once the State Government has issued Government Resolution dated 27.04.2011, the petitioner can only be absorbed after 5 years in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200/-

5.1. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Chauhan that the present writ petition is barred by delay as the petitioner has approached after 4 years after the passing of the order dated 15.12.2014.

6. Learned AGP Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja has submitted in view of the policy of the State Government dated 27.04.2011, the petitioner can only be absorbed after he completes 5 years of service and not before that.

7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

8. The Court has also perused the judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20873 of 2015. In the similar case having identical facts, the Court after perusal of the resolutions dated 15.04.2010 and 27.04.2011 has observed thus:

6. In the present case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners are appointed vide orders dated 03.07.2010 in view of the policy dated 15.04.2010. The condition No. 12 of the appointment order, specifically narrates that after completion of 2 years of service as Vidhya Sahayak, they will be placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200. This condition has been incorporated in their appointment orders in view of the condition No. 13 of the original policy/Government Resolution dated 03.04.2010, by which the State Government has introduced the policy appointing the Vidhya Sahayaks.

7. Thus, the services of the petitioners are governed by the conditions incorporated in their appointment orders. Despite the aforesaid policy as well as appointment orders, the State Government did not place th