IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of benefits without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard was unjust and improper, and the petitioner's entitlement to the first higher pay scale was supported by previous judgments and orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition is filed by the original petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs.

(A) be pleased to allow this petition,

(B) be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment/order/award 29-4-2013 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.281 of 2004:

(C) be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents no. 1 and 2 to apply:-

(I) the judgment dated 29-7-2003 in Special Civil Application No.10772 of 2003.

(II) judgment dated 18-2-2010 in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and other cognate matters.

(III) Special Civil Application No.8181 of 1998 dated 6-8-1999.

(IV) Oral order dated 28-1-2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.663 of 2000 to 665 of 2000.

In the case of the petitioner and grant the benefit of first higher grade scale (Rs.1400 – 2600) with effect from 1-1-1992 i.e. the date on which the petitioner completed 9 years services on the post of sr clerk and grant all the consequential and incidental benefits including the second higher pay scale by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25-10-1994.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of first higher pay scale (Rs.1400 – 2600) with effect from 1-1-1992 i.e. the date on which the petitioner completed 9 year service on the post of sr clerk and grant all the consequential and incidental benefits including the second higher pay scale and its effect in retirement benefits in light of judicial pronouncements annexed to this petition.

(D) be pleased to pass such other and further orders may be deemed just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

2. Facts of the present petition in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as senior clerk and was promoted as senior clerk on 01.01.1983 in the District Panchayat, Valsad by way of regular selection. The petitioner has completed 9 years continuous service on the post of senior clerk on 31.12.1991 and, therefore, he was entitled to the first higher pay scale of Rs.1400 – 2600 with effect from 01.01.1992, but the same was granted to the petitioner on passing of departmental examination in 1997. That the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed 9 years on 31.12.1991, whereas, the departmental examination was first time taken in 1994, however, he could not have appeared in the examination. That the petitioner and other employees were given benefit of the higher pay scale by order dated 29.03.1993 (the petitioner is at Sr.No.15). However, without giving any opportunity of hearing the aforesaid benefit was withdrawn by impugned order dated 25.10.1994 and, therefore, the petitioner made several representations. That thereafter the petitioner passed the departmental examination in 1997 and was given the benefit in 1998 and again petitioner made representation which came to be rejected in 2004. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent – authority, petitioner preferred Appeal No.281 of 2004 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal which came to be dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order / communication/action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Heard Mr.Hardik Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Rutvij Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the materials placed on record.

5. Mr.Hardik Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the impugned order is illegal