ORDER :

1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr. Manan Mehta for the appellant in the first two captioned Letters Patent Appeals, whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Krutik Parikh for the appellant in the third captioned Letters Patent Appeal and learned advocate Mr. Harsh Raval for the respondents in the first two captioned Letters Patent Appeals, as well as learned advocate Mr. Harshadray Dave in the third captioned Letters Patent Appeal.

2.1 All the appeals arise from common judgment dated 25.2.2022 of learned single Judge passed in three respective Special Civil Applications. The appellant State and the Commissioner of Higher Education have called in question the said common judgment and order of learned single Judge in these three Letters Patent Appeal preferred under clause 5 of the Letters Patent.

2.2 Since the facts and the issues are common, the appeals were heard together to be treated for final disposal by this order.

2.3 Allowing the Special Civil Applications, learned single Judge issued the following directions:

“Thus, in order to see that the petitioners are conferred the retirement benefits, the State Government is directed to grant the same to the petitioners. It is clarified that it will be open for the State Government to initiate appropriate process, after conferring the said benefits to the petitioners to recover the same or to adjust the same from the grant given to the University. However, it is clarified that such action can only be taken after appropriate consultation with the respondent-University keeping in mind that the initial appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or against the provisions of law since all the petitioners have undergone the regular recruitment process.”

2.3.1 It was further directed:

“Appropriate orders conferring the pension and retirement benefits shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. It is clarified that it will be open for the State Government to examine the case of each of the petitioners and only in such case if it is found that the appointment is made without following any recruitment process or illegally, the State may deny such benefit. It is clarified that it will be open for such employee to challenge the action of the State or the University in denying the benefits.”

2.4 In respect of those employees who died during the pendency, their legal heirs were directed to be given benefits of pension and other retirement benefits.

2.5 What was prayed by the petitioners in their Special Civil Applications was to direct the respondent authorities to extend the benefits of 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.2006 treating the petitioners to be entitled to such benefits. Resolutions dated 15.1.2020, 4.2.2011 and 14.8.2012 were prayed to be set aside whereby such benefits stood denied to the petitioners. The other limb of the prayer was to direct the respondents to grant the benefits of gratuity and pension as well as the higher pay scale of service from the due date.

3. Noticing the basic facts, particularly from Special Civil Application No. 14390 of 2011 relating to Letters Patent Appeal no. 1274 of 2022, as they ran common and similar in all the cases, pursuant to advertisement dated 21.12.1983 issued by the respondent Gujarat University for the post of Stenographer Grade II. The petitioner applied for the post. He was called for in interview and came to be given letter of appointment on 16.4.1984 upon verification of the eligibility. The appointment was on permanent post on probation for one year in the pay scale of Rs. 475-800 + D.A. as per the rules of the University. The petitioner of the said petition stood confirmed by order dated 1.1.1986 of the University with effect from 26.4.1985 on the basis of the decision of the Executive Council. The confirmation letter of the petitioner figured on the record of the petition.

3.1 Thereafter, by letter dated 8.4.2022, the pay scale of