IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the withdrawal of benefits without a hearing and the refusal to grant the petitioner the entitled higher pay scale was unjust and improper.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition is filed by the original petitioner (deceased) 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 mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondents 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 23-12-1989 i.e. the date on which the petitioner completed 9 years services on the post of senior 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 qua the petitioner.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of first higher pay scale (Rs.1400 – 2600) with effect from 23-12-1989 i.e. the date on which the petitioner completed 9 year service on the post of senior clerk and grant all the consequential and incidental benefits including the second higher pay scale 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 junior clerk on 16.06.1972 and was promoted as senior clerk on 23.12.1980 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 23.12.1989 and, therefore, he was entitled to the first higher pay scale of Rs.1400 – 2600 with effect from 23.12.1989. That the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed 9 years on 23.12.1989, whereas, the departmental examination was first time taken in 1983, however, he could not have appeared in the examination. The petitioner and other employees were given benefits of the higher pay scale vide order dated 29.03.1993. 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. Thereafter the petitioner passed the departmental examination in 1996 and he was promoted on the post of Deputy Chitnis with effect from 02.06.1992 and was further promoted as Office Superintendent on 01.03.2007. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was entitled to the higher pay scale in the post of Deputy Chitnis on completion of 9 years from 02.06.2000 and thereafter he superannuated on 13.04.2009 and made several representations which are not replied.

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.H. S. Munshaw, 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, unjust and arbitrary. He has submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judicial pronouncement and the benefit is given to one set of employees the State should extend the same benefit to other identically situated employees and should not force them to approach