The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and the revision of pay-scale as per the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Pay Commission recommendations, despite being appointed after 01.10.1988.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State waive service of notice of rule.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and extend the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with revision of pay as per the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Pay Commission and also to open the GPF account of the petitioner for the purpose of granting pension as per the Old Pension Scheme.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that similarly situated employees have been granted the benefits as prayed for in the present petition by this court vide order dated 09.06.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5953 of 2017 and those employees have been paid the benefits pursuant to the directions issued by this court including that of the 7th Pay Commission and opening of GPF Account.

“1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Mishra for learned advocate Mr. T R Mishra for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M.Antani for the respondent-State through video conference.

2. Pursuant to order of Civil Application No. 1 of 2021, Special Civil Application is taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned advocates of the respective parties. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed as under :

“(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order marked Ann.C to this petition, denying the benefit of revision of pay-scale from Fourth to Fifth and Fifth to Sixth Pay Commission recommendation as per G.R.dated 17.10.1988 which has been accepted by the State of Gujarat;

(B) Direct the respondents to grant the benefit of revision of pay-scale as per the recommendation of Fifth and Sixth Pay commission as per G.R. Dtd 17.10.1988 and pay the same along with 12% interest thereon;

(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately consider the case of the petitioners in view of the fact that the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;

(D) Any other and such further relief as per the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice together with costs.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have been working in the regular time scale of pay and are being paid wages as per the 4th Pay Commission Recommendation. The petitioners earlier filed Special Civil Application No. 13051 of 2010 to direct the respondents to revise the basic salary of the petitioners as per the recommendation of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission Recommendation which was accepted by the State of Gujarat. This Court, vide order dated 17.07.2015, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the said petition.

5. The petitioners therefore, made application to consider case of the petitioners. After filing of contempt petition the case of the petitioners was considered by the respondent and vide communication dated 24.01.2016 being Office Order No. 3 of 2016 Executive Engineer, Jamnagar Irrigation Department, Jamnagar rejected the benefit of revision of pay scale from 4th Pay Commission and 5th and 6th Pay Scale on the ground that the petitioners have been appointed on their original post after 01.10.1988 and therefore, benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 cannot be given to the petitioners.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Mishra appearing for the petitioners submitted that there were in all 10 petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 13055 of 2010 and allied matters and out of 10 petitioners, 4 petitioners were skilled workers who preferred Special Civil Application No. 6420 of 2017 challenging the Office Order No. 2 of 2016 dated 21.0