Narendrabhai Shivabhai Gadhvi vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 5125 Guj

    C/SCA/12839/2014                               CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12839 of 2014


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN
==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO of the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== NARENDRABHAI SHIVABHAI GADHVI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance:

MR BHAVYARAJ GOHIL for

MR MEET THAKKAR AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN

Date : 03/07/2023

CAV JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 26/4/2012 and for for direction directing the respondents to grant the higher pay scale to the petitioner

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

w.e.f. 3/11/1998 i.e. after completion of nine years from the date of appointment, instead of 1/3/2002, with consequential benefits.

2. FACTS :

2.1. The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 25.10.1989. He joined on 3.11.1989. After completion 9 years of service, the petitioner was granted the 1 st higher pay scale w.e.f 1/3/2002 vide Order dated 1/3/2005. The name of the petitioner stands at Sr.No.17. The petitioner is granted the higher pay scale w.e.f 1/3/2002 i.e. the date on which he completed his training course.

2.2. The petitioner along with other persons made representations requesting to the respondents to grant higher pay scale from their date of eligibility. The petitioner with other employees filed Special Civil Application No.3228 of 2012 praying for grant of higher pay scale from the date of completion of nine years service. By the Order dated 14/3/2012, this Court disposed the petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners.

2.3. Pursuant the order of this Court, the Respondent no.2, vide Order dated 26/4/2012 maintained the Order dated 1/3/2005 granting the higher pay scale to the petitioner from the date of passing the departmental exam/training. It

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

is stated in the Order that an objection was raised by the Local Fund for grant of higher pay scale from the date of passing the examination.

2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner, along with others, filed Special Civil Application No.2411 of 2013 before this Court challenging para 3(5) of the government Resolution dated 16/8/1994 and further prayed for grant of higher pay scale after completion of nine years from service. The said petition was permitted to be withdrawn vide Order dated 3/4/2013 passed by this Court with a view to file fresh petition with appropriate averments. The petitioner, thereafter approached the respondents to supply him necessary Rules pertaining to the departmental examinations and training. After collecting the relevant and necessary material, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the Order dated 26.4.2012 and for directing the respondents to grant the higher pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 3/11/1998 i.e. after completion of nine years from the date of appointment, instead of 1/3/2002, with consequential benefits.

3. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER EMPLOYEE: 3.1. Mr.Bhavyaraj Gohil, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner became eligible for higher pay scale w.e.f 3/11/1998 after

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

completion of nine years service as per Resolution dated 16/8/1994. It is submitted that the petitioner is granted the higher pay scale from 1/3/2002 i.e. from the date of passing his departmental training. The said departmental examination/training is governed by the Resolution dated 12/7/1989. It is submitted that Rule 16 of the said Rules provides for passing the examination by Laboratory Technician within three attempts within specified period i.e. 3 years. Rule 19 provides that the Director, Health, Medical Services and Medical Education or an Officer who has been empowered by him in this regard will arrange for conducting examination, paper setting etc., with the Deans of the Colleges. It is submitted that till the petitioner became eligible for higher pay scale i.e. on 3/11/1998, no departmental examination/training was held and he was not sent to undertake the training since the training was stopped by the State Government between the year 1995 and 2001. The petitioner was sent for undergoing training/departmental examination vide Order dated 9/3/2001. It is submitted that, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the higher pay scale for no fault on his part since the respondent-authorities did not send him for undertaking the departmental examination/training. It is submitted that once the petitioner has cleared the same, he should have been granted the same from 3/11/1998 and not from the date of passing the examination.

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

3.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1133 in support of his contention that the higher pay scale is required to be granted on completion of 9 years. He has also relied upon the decision dated 8/5/2012 rendered in Special Civil Application No.4123 of 2012, confirmed by the Division Bench vide Order dated 3/9/2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.766 of 2014. He has also relied on the decision dated 31/3/2009 rendered in Special Civil Application No.2146 of 2009 and decision dated 18/2/2010, rendered in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and allied matters. The aforesaid decisions are on the issue of higher pay scale and non holding of the departmental examination within time. It is submitted that the issue is squarely covered and hence he has requested to allow the present petition.

4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE AGP FOR STATE :

4.1. Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP appearing for the respondents - State has opposed the present petition. He has contended that the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant on 25/10/1989, he joined the service on 03.11.1989 and thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examination Laboratory Technician in 2001 and after clearing the said examination, the petitioner was granted higher pay-scale w.e.f. 01/03/2002 i.e. the day, he passed

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

his training for Laboratory Technician. It is submitted that thereafter on 14/03/2012, the petitioner along with other persons made a representations requesting for grant of nigher pay-scale from their date of eligibility and thereafter they made an application before this Court in SCA No.3228 of 2012 praying for grant of higher pay scale from the date of completion of 9 years of service by the order dated 14/03/2012 and this Court disposed of the petition with the directions upon the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners.

4.2. Mr.Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the State has further submitted that the petitioner has completed the training in August-2002 and therefore, the petitioner has been granted the higher pay scale from the date of passing of the examination. He has submitted that that G.R. dated 16/08/1994 emphatically delineates that the higher pay- scale shall be provided from the date of the passing of the examination, as per Rule-3, Sub-Rule-9 of the said Government Resolution, which reads as under :

'If the employee passes departmental examination for the purpose of promotion, after completion of nine years in his cadre, higher grade scale shall have to be granted on the basis of eligibility from date of passing such examination."

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

4.3. Mr.Thakkar, learned AGP has submitted that the petitioner became eligible for higher pay-scale w.e.f. 03/11/1988 after completion of 9 years of service as per G.R. dated 16/08/1984. it is contended that as per the aforesaid G.R. provides that the benefits of the higher pay scale shall be provided from the date of clearing the examination. It is further contended that Rule 3, Sub-Rule- 9 of the aforesaid G.R. dated 16/08/1994 categorically states that the benefits of the higher pay-scale shall be provided of completion of 9 years or passing of the examination whichever is later. Therefore, the petitioner has been provided the benefit of the higher pay scale after he cleared the examination as per aforesaid GR dated 16/08/1994

5. In reply to the contention raised by the learned AGP on the basis of paragraph 3(9) of the Government Resolution dated 16/8/1994 which states that that higher pay scale is to be granted from the date of passing he departmental examination, is concerned, it is submitted by Mr.Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioner that the said para will apply to those cases where the examination is held regularly within time limit and the employee is not responsible for any delay in undertaking the examination. In this case the departmental examination/training is governed by the Resolution dt.12.7.1989. Mr.Gohil further submitted that Rule 16 of the said Rules states of passing the examination

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

by Laboratory Technician within three attempts within specified period i.e 3 years. Rule 19 states that the Director, Health, Medical Services and Medical Education or an Officer who has been empowered by him in this regard will arrange for conducting examination, paper setting etc., with the Deans of the Colleges. It is submitted that till the petitioner became eligible for higher pay scale i.e. on 3/11/1998, no departmental examination/training was held and the petitioner was not sent to undertake the training since the training was stopped by the State Government between the year 1995 and 2001, and the petitioner was sent for undergoing training/departmental examination vide Order dated 9/3/2001. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the higher pay scale for no fault on the part of the petitioner since the respondent-authorities did not send the petitioner for departmental examination/training. It is submitted that once the petitioner cleared the same, higher pay scale should have been granted w.e.f. 3/11/1998 and not from the date of passing the examination. He has submitted that in the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, it is clearly held that the benefits of higher pay scale is required to be granted on completion of 9 years.

6. Heard Mr.Bhavyaraj Gohil, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the State

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

and perused the material record and considered the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates for the respective parties.

7. FINDINGS :-

7.1. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner joined services as Laboratory Assistant on 3/11/1989 and after completion of 9 years service, the petitioner was granted 1 st higher pay scale w.e.f. 1/3/2002 vide order dated 1/3/2005. As per the case of the petitioner, he became eligible for higher pay scale w.e.f. 3/11/1998 on completion of nine years as per Government Resolution dated 16/8/1994 but he was granted higher pay scale w.e.f. 1/3/2002 i.e. from the date of passing his the departmental training.

7.2. It is pertinent to noted that the departmental training is governed by Government Resolution dated 12/7/1989 and the Rules and Rule 16 of the Rules provides of passing the departmental examination by the Laboratory Technician within three attempts within specified period i.e. 3 years. Rule 19 provides that the Director, Health, Medical Services and Medical Education or an Officer who has been empowered by him in this regard will arrange for conducting examination, paper setting etc., with the Deans of the Colleges. In view of the GR dated 16.8.1994 granting benefit of first higher grade upon completion of service of 9

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

years and accordingly the petitioner became entitled for the said benefit w.e.f. 3/11/1998. The said GR postulates the person claiming benefit of the said GR should have completed service of 9 years and should also pass the qualifying examination. What is relevant for considering the claim for such benefit is the Rules notified by the Government, i.e. The Child Development Project Officer (Female) in the Gujarat Public Health Service Examination Rules, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1993"]. The said Rules of 1993 is to be read with GR dated 16.8.1994. It is claimed that the said benefit is available to persons like petitioner under the said Rules of 1993 read with GR dated 16/8/1994. The provision which requires the respondent - State to hold examination is found under Rule 8, which read thus:-

"RULE 8 : Holding of the Examination The Health and Family Welfare Department shall hold the examination twice in a year ordinarily in the months of June and December."

7.3. The undisputed facts are that till the petitioner became eligible for higher pay scale i.e. on 3/11/1998, no departmental examination/training was held and conducted and the petitioner was not sent for training since the training was stopped by the State Government between the year 1995 and 2001. It is not the case of the respondent

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

State that before the petitioner appeared in the examination and cleared the examination, earlier also examination was held and conducted but the petitioner did not appear in the departmental examination or he failed. The learned AGP has not produced any evidence to satisfy this Court that departmental examination was conducted from 1995 to 2001. Thus, it is an admitted fact that no departmental examination was held and conducted by the respodents for long time. When, after long duration, the examination came to be conducted for the first time, the petitioner was sent for undergoing training/departmental examination vide Order dated 9/3/2001 and the petitioner appeared in the said examination and has cleared the said test in first attempt and he was declared successful in the said examination. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was not at fault for not appearing in the departmental examination within three years. The petitioner cannot be denied the higher pay scale for no fault on his part since the respondent-authorities did not send him for departmental examination/training and Clause 3(9) of the Government Resolution dated 16/8/1994 which states that that higher pay scale is to be granted from the date of passing he departmental examination, said clause will apply to those cases where the examination is held regularly within time prescribed limit within three years. In the present case, departmental examination has not been conducted within 3 years. The departmental examination/training is governed

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

by the Resolution dated 12/7/1989 Rule 16 of the Rules states of passing the examination by Laboratory Technician within three attempts within specified period i.e 3 years. Rule 19 states that the Director, Health, Medical Services and Medical Education or an Officer who has been empowered by him in this regard will arrange for conducting examination, paper setting etc., with the Deans of the Colleges. It is pertinent to note that till the petitioner became eligible for higher pay scale i.e. on 3/11/1998, no departmental examination/training was held by the respondent department and the petitioner was not sent to undertake the training since the training was stopped by the State Government between the year 1995 and 2001, and the petitioner was sent for undergoing training/departmental examination vide Order dated 9/3/2001. Therefore, when there is no fault of the petitioner in not appearing and passing departmental examination within three years and when the departmental examination was not conducted, the petitioner cannot be denied the higher pay scale for no fault on the part of the petitioner since the respondent-authorities did not send the petitioner for departmental examination/training. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to higher pay scale w.e.f. 3/11/1998 the date on which the petitioner completed 9 years and became eligible for higher pay scale and not from the date of passing the examination, because there was no fault of the petitioner in not appearing the departmental

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

examination, but it is the State which did not conduct the departmental examination within 3 years.

7.4. The controversy involved in the present petition as to from which date the higher pay scale is to be granted, is not res integra and the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar (supra). In paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :

"9. This is a question of construction of the rules which form part of the scheme prescribing a condition for promo- tion. We do not have to reflect upon the rules of interpretation since they are well settled. They are now like the habits of driving which have become ingrained. They come to our assistance by instinct. We are to use the different rules meticulously to give effect to the scheme as we use the clutch, brake and accelerator for smooth driving. These rules are to be harmoniously construed. We should not concentrate too much on one rule and pay too little attention on the other. That would lead us astray and result in hard- ship. We must avoid such construction. Rule 2 of the 1962 Rules no doubt states that a candidate who does not pass the examination at the end of nine years' service will lose his seniority. But this rule cannot be read in isolation as the High Court did. It has to be read along with the other rules since it is a part of the scheme provided for promotion. Rule 5 requires the Government to hold the examination every year. This

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

rule is the basis of the entire scheme and the effect of other rules depends upon holding the examination. If examination is not held in any year, the rule 2 cannot operate to the prejudice of a person who has not exhausted all his chances. The person who has not exhausted the avail- able chances to appear in the examination cannot be denied of his seniority. It would be unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary to penalise a person for the default of the Government to hold the examination every year. That does not also appear to be the intent or purpose of the 1962 Rules.

10. If the examination is not held in any year, the person who has not exhausted all the permissible chances has a right to have his case considered for promotion even if he has completed 9 years' service. The Government instead of promoting such persons in their turn made them to wait till they passed the examination. They are the persons falling into the category of "Late Passing". To remove the hardship caused to them the Government wisely restored their legiti- mate seniority in the promotional cadre. There is, in our opinion, nothing improper or illegal in this action and indeed, it is in harmony with the object of the 1962 Rules.

11. This takes us to the question whether the Government was justified in individual cases to relax the period for pass- ing the examination. It is said that the number of persons failing into this category are not more than five. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the Government, it is

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

stated that the Government made some orders extending the period for individuals to pass the examination on administrative grounds or on some genuine hardships. It is also stated that such orders were made upon recommendations by the respective departments and those persons passed the examination within the period extended. There is no reason to doubt the cor- rectness of these statements made in the rejoinder. The power to relax the conditions of the rules to avoid undue hardship in any case or class of cases cannot now be gain- said. It would be, therefore, futile for the respondents to make any grievance.

7.5. Similar issue had arisen before this Court in Special Civil Application No.4123 of 2012. In the said decision also question of grant of higher pay scale as per GR dated 16/8/1994 had arisen and in which also departmental examination was not held and conducted for many years and subsequently when departmental examination was held, the petitioner employee appeared and cleared the examination and the department granted benefit of higher pay scale from the date of passing of the departmental examination and not from the date on which the employee completed 9 years. In the said decision also, departmental examination was not held and conducted for many years by the State. In the said decision this Hon'ble Court has observed and held as under :-

"3.3 Relying on the order dated 31.3.2009 passed

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

in Special Civil Application No.2146 of 2009 and order dated 18.2.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and allied matters, the petitioner has claimed that it was the respondent authorities who did not conduct the examination for so many years and that therefore, for the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner should not be penalized. It is claimed that as per the Rules, the petitioner became entitled for the benefit w.e.f. 24.4.1996 and that therefore, the benefit should be allowed to the petitioner from the said date.

4. The relief, prayed for by the petitioner, is disputed and resisted by the respondents.

5. The relevant factual aspects are not in dispute inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the petitioner came to be appointed vide appointment letter dated 3.3.1987 and she resumed her duties on 24.4.1987. It is also not in dispute that the Government has declared the policy, which is reflected from the above mentioned Rules of 1993 read with GR dated 16.8.1994, which provides for benefit of first higher grade to the employees, who completes service of 9 years.

5.1 It is also not in dispute that the examination which the employees are required to clear for becoming eligible for the said benefit, have not been conducted since many years. The said aspects have been taken note of by the Court in the above mentioned two orders, i.e. order dated 31.3.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.2146 of 2009 and order dated 18.2.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and allied matters.

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

5.2 It is also not in dispute that after many years, the examination, as contemplated under the Rules, was conducted in November-2007 and the petitioner cleared the said examination in the first attempt on 23.11.2007.

5.3 It is also not in dispute that the respondents have considered petitioner eligible and entitled for the said benefit w.e.f. 24.4.1996. However, the petitioner claims that she should be granted benefit on and from the date on which she became entitled for the said benefit, i.e. 21.3.1997 and merely because the respondent failed to conduct the examination, the petitioner should not be deprived of such benefit.

6. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the observations made by the Court in order dated 31.3.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.2126 of 2009. In the said order, the Court has observed in para 13 to 15 that:-

"13. Identical question came to be considered by the learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 29.7.2003 in Special Civil Application No.10772 of 2003 thereby, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal by which the Tribunal directed the State-Authorities to grant higher grade scale from the date on which the employee became eligible for completion of 9 (nine) years service which was denied on the ground that the employee had not passed the departmental promotional examination. It appears that the said decision has not been further carried in an appeal and the State Government has accepted said judgment and order.

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

14. Even otherwise, considering the fact that when since 1991, the departmental promotional examination has not been conducted by the respondent-State and when the petitioner was always ready and willing to appear in the examination and had twice filled up the form, petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of higher grade scale on completion of 9 (nine) years service solely on the ground that petitioner has not passed departmental promotional examination, which is not conducted by the State since 1991. To deny the benefit of higher grade scale to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has not passed departmental promotional examination would be penalizing the petitioner/employee for their no fault.

It is also required to be noted that even in the present Special Civil Application also, in paragraph 13 of petition, petitioner undertakes to appear and pass the examination within the prescribed trials whenever it is held. Under the circumstances, petitioner can be extended the benefit of first higher grade scale subject to petitioner appearing and passing the examination within the prescribed trials whenever it is held.

15. For the reasons stated above, petition succeeds. Respondents are directed to grant the actual benefit of first higher grade scale as per the order dated 10.12.2004 from the date of completion of 9 (nine) years as Head Constable, Driver Mechanic Grade-I subject to the petitioner appearing and passing the examination for the post of Police Sub Inspector - Motor Transport within

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

the prescribed trial(s) whenever it is held. Petitioner shall be paid the arrears within a period of 2 (two) months from today and is continued to pay the benefit of first higher grade pay scale."

6.1 Thereafter, the issue again came up for consideration before the Court in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and allied matters. The Court, while considering the said issue, made below mentioned observations vide order dated 18.2.2010:-

"6. It is clear that the controversy has arisen from requirement of passing the departmental examination meant for the promotion to the post of Child Development Project (Female) Officer. It is undisputed that passing of the departmental examination is sine qua non for grant of higher grade scale.

It is also not disputed that such departmental examination was held for the first time in the year 1993 and all the petitioners had become eligible for the first higher grade scale prior to holding of such examination.

The respondents at the relevant time had also granted the benefit of the first higher grade scale counting their nine years service from the date of appointment. Thus, the petitioners were not at fault, but the lapse on the part of respondents in not holding the examinations in time pursuant to the relevant rules caused the problem. The petitioners were rightly granted benefit of the higher grade scale after completion of nine years of service at the relevant time and they cannot be deprived of that benefit for voluntary act of the respondents in not holding the examination before the petitioners became eligible. No opportunity

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

of hearing was given to the petitioner before retrospectively withdrawing the benefit of higher pay scale given to them.

7. For the above reasons, the petitions are allowed, the impugned orders modifying the higher grade scale to the petitioners and for effecting recovery are set aside and the earlier orders by which the petitioners were granted the first higher grade scales after completion of 9 years in service are restored with direction to grant them the consequent benefits. Monetary benefits due to the petitioner under this order shall be paid to the petitioners within three months from today."

7. The facts narrated in the petition, which are not disputed by the respondents, give out that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not fulfilling the requirement of passing the examination. When the respondent consistently failed to conduct the examination despite the obligation cast on it by virtue of the above mentioned provision, i.e. Rule 8 of the 1993 Rules, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the lapse on the part of the respondent authorities. The Rules contemplate and provide that the employee would be entitled for the benefit on completion of 9 year's service. The Rules oblige the department to hold examination twice in a year, i.e. in June and December, so that any practical anomaly, such as in present petition, may not arise. When despite such clear provision, the respondents failed and neglected the conduct the examination, the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault. If the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, is not granted, then, it would amount to penalizing the petitioner for no fault on her part rather

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

for the default on the part of the respondents.

8. It is not the case of the respondents that though the examinations, as contemplated under Rule 8 read with GR dated 16.8.1994, were held from time to time, the petitioner did not attend/appear in the said test and/or the petitioner did not succeed in the said test and it was only in November-02007, the petitioner for the first time cleared the said examination. Had that been the case, then, the matter would stand on different footing. However, in present case, it is not in dispute that on the date on which the petitioner became entitled for the said benefit or immediately thereafter and until November-2007, any examination was held. Under the circumstances, the entire interregnum, passed without examination being held, for that lapse, the petitioner, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be held responsible. The fault for the said delay or lapse lies at the door- step of the respondents for which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

7.6. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this Court in catena of decisions including in Special Civil Application No.2146 of 2009 and decision dated 18/2/2010 and in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2010 and allied matters.

7.7. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in the decision dated 8/5/2012 rendered in Special Civil Application No.4123 of 2012 which has been confirmed by the Division Bench vide Order dated 3/9/2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.766 of 2014.

C/SCA/12839/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2023

7.8. In the present case the petitioner was not at fault, but the lapse on the part of respondents in not holding the examinations in time pursuant to the relevant rules caused the problem. The petitioner is entitled to higher grade on completion of nine years of service and he cannot be deprived of that benefit for voluntary act of the respondents in not holding the examination before the petitioner became eligible.

8. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26/4/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant the higher pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 3/11/1998 i.e. on completion of nine years from the date of appointment instead of 1/3/2002, with consequential benefits. Consequently, monetary benefits due to the petitioner under this order shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from today. Rule is made absolute.

Sd/-

(RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J) R.H. PARMAR