JUDGMENT :

(Pranav Trivedi, J.)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 05.04.2016 in Special Civil Application No.533 of 2014.

2. The prayer as prayed for by the respondent – original writ petitioner in Special Civil Application No.633 of 2014 was to direct the authorities forthwith to give deemed date of promotion of 01.06.1983 to the petitioner in the cadre of Clerk (Class-III) and to give all consequential benefits together with interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner. It was also prayed to direct the authorities to forthwith give deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Clerk (Class-III) as given to his junior Mr. Shanabhai Hathibhai Khant.

3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments canvassed by both the parties, was pleased to allow the writ petition and grant the relief as prayed in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed to give the deemed date of promotion on 01.06.1983 to the original petitioner in the cadre of Clerk (Class-III) with all consequential benefits including the pension but without any interest. This order is challenged by the State Authorities in the present appeal.

4. The factual matrix that has led to filing of the writ petition was that the respondent – original petitioner belonged to SEBC category. The petitioner was appointed as Kotwal (Class-IV) by order dated 30.05.1979. The petitioner joined the duty on 01.06.1979. He passed the pre-service training examination for purpose of promotion as Clerk (Class- III) by application dated 21.02.1983. However, he was not granted promotion at the relevant time. He sat tight on his right for a long period of time.

5. It was the case of the petitioner that another exactly similarly situated employee viz. Shanabhai Hathibhai Khant passed similar pre-service training examination after the petitioner on 23.12.1983 and was junior to the petitioner for the purpose of promotion. Mr.Khant was also not granted promotion and, therefore, he preferred writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.7256 of 1990 which came to be allowed by way of judgment and order dated 18.11.1991 and thereby consequentially he was granted deemed date of promotion from 06.03.1993. Therefore, it was the case of the petitioner that he was also similarly situated to Mr.Shanabhai Hathibhai Khant.

6. The petitioner was given promotion as Clerk by order dated 15.12.2006 but without deemed date and after undertaking given by the petitioner that he would not claim deemed date and would not approach the Court for any relief. However, the petitioner made representation in the year 2009 for granting deemed date and another subsequent representation on 25.10.2010. Such representations of the petitioner were not considered and he retired on 31.12.2010. Almost after period of four years in the year 2014 he preferred writ petition for seeking deemed date of promotion. The learned Single Judge by way of impugned order dated 05.04.2016 granted the prayers made by the petitioner after observing that the only preliminary objection by the respondent authorities was with regard to delay which should not be considered. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was pleased to grant the relief as prayed by the petitioner. The State Authority has assailed this order passed by the learned Single Judge in the present appeal.

7. We have heard Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned advocate for the respondent.

8. Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there was massive delay in approaching this Hon’ble Court. It was further submitted that there are two grounds pressed by the respondent before this Hon’ble Court and they were that (i) he became due for promotion in the year 1983 and (ii) similarly situated junior colleague Mr.Khant was granted promotion in th