ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Learned Advocate Mr. Ekrama Qureshi appearing for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Henil Shah appearing for the respondent – State.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“A. Be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus, writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to release the benefits of pay and wages with arrears and all other allowances to the present petitioners as directed by the Division bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA no 1159 of 2017 ‘Ann:-’D’ and allied petitions.

B. Be pleased to direct the respondents to release the benefits as prayed in para A above in favour of the petitioners from the date when the said benefits are released in favour of the similarly situated petitioners who are party to the proceedings of LPA no 1159 of 2017 Ann:’D’ above, in the interest of justice and by treating the present petitioners at par with them.

C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition the respondents be directed to reveal as to what steps have been taken by them to release the benefits in favour of the present petitioners.

D. Any other and further relief in the interest of justice may kindly be granted.”

4. The case, in a nutshell, as canvassed by learned Advocate Mr. Ekrama Qureshi for the petitioners, is that the petitioners were appointed as lecturers in the Government Degree Engineering College in the Mechanical Engineering branch in the years 2013 and 2014 on fixed pay. Although the petitioners were paid fixed pay, other similarly situated individuals who were serving as lecturers, either on an ad-hoc basis or regular basis, were given a regular pay scale prior to 2008. Thereafter, upon the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission, the regular GPSC lecturers and ad-hoc lecturers who were appointed prior to May 2008 were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100/-, but the petitioners were not granted the aforementioned benefits. Not only were the petitioners discriminated against in terms of pay scale, grade pay, increments, vacation detention leave, HPL, LTC, etc. According to the petitioner, similarly situated persons had preferred a petition, Special Civil Application No. 8154 of 2015, before this Court, which was decided by CAV Judgment dated 07.09.2016. Ultimately, it was directed that the contractual lecturers are entitled to and shall be paid the minimum pay scale for the post of lecturer, along with all allowances attached to the post, with effect from January 2015. The aforesaid order was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1159 of 2017 by the Division Bench. However, in the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench slightly modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the State, clarified that the writ applicants shall be entitled to arrears of the difference in wages for three years preceding the filing of the writ petitions before this Court, which shall carry simple interest at the rate of 8%.

5. The aforesaid order was further carried before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, in another set of petitions, a Division Bench of this Court took a different view. Therefore, both groups of petitions were ultimately carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1347 of 2024 and allied matters in the case of Shah Samir Bharatbhai and others versus State of Gujarat and others, directed that contractual Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale admissible to Assistant Professors, and that arrears, calculated at the rate of 8%, shall be paid for the period of three years preceding the date of filing of the writ pe