JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Vishrut Jani for M/s. R C Jani and Associate for the respondents No.1, 2, and 3.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges orders passed by the respondent Authorities dated 5.3.2012 and 28.6.2012, whereby the respondent Authorities have sought to set aside the orders, whereby the benefits of First Higher Pay-scale and Second Higher Pay-scale granted to the petitioner have been revoked and whereas it has been clarified that there shall not be any recovery on account of such revocation.

3. Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya would draw the attention of this Court to a decision of a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala – as he then was) in Special Civil Application No.17170 of 2012 and allied matters dated 9.7.2015, wherein according to the learned Advocate Ms. Pandya, the learned Coordinate Bench was dealing with a similar issue raised by the petitioners similarly situated and whereas according to the learned Advocate, by way of the said judgement, the learned Coordinate Bench had been pleased to set aside the decision of the respondent Authorities, whereby the grant of First and Second Higher Pay-scales has been revoked. Learned Advocate Ms. Pandya for the petitioner would submit that having regard to the observations made by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the said decision, and further considering the said decision has become final between the parties, since no appeal has been filed by the respondents against the same, therefore, on such ground, the present petition may be allowed by this Court, and whereas the impugned order may be set aside by this Court.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vishrut Jani for the respondents, while he could not dispute the fact that the common judgement dated 9.7.2015 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court was in a similar instance, in case of similarly situated persons and whereas learned Advocate Mr. Jani would contest the present petition on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani would submit that the order in question is dated 5.3.2012 and whereas the present petition has been preferred in the month of July 2016 i.e. approximately after more than four years. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani would submit that the present petitioner was a fence-sitter i.e. the petitioner having waited for the petitions, which were decided by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 9.7.2015 and it is only after the said decision had been passed by the learned Coordinate Bench that the present petitioner had started agitating for his rights. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani would submit that considering the fact that the petitioner had not raised any claim in the interregnum period of four years, for such reason only, on the ground of unexplained delay, the present petition may not be entertained by this Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani, in support of his contention, would rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of Indore Vs. Govindrao, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 617 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Ors., reported in (2015) 15 SCC 602. Relying upon the said decisions, learned Advocate would request that this petition may not be entertained by this Court.

5. Considering the very limited challenge made by the learned Advocate Mr. Jani for the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the same at this stage, more particularly to decide the issue as to whether the petition could be rejected on the ground of gross and unexplained delay. At the outset, it would be required to be noted that both the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr. Jani for the respondents are in cases where the employee had been subjected to an order of dismissal and whereas the said order had been challenged after