Gujarat High Court

Late Kamlaben Pitambardas Patel Thru Lh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/21000/2019                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21000 of 2019


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                        Yes           No
                                                                                  ✓
                      ==========================================================
                        LATE KAMLABEN PITAMBARDAS PATEL THRU LH PURSHOTTAMBHAI
                                           SOMABHAI WAGHELA
                                                  Versus
                                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR SHIVANG A THACKER(7424) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR HENIL SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 - STATE
                      MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
                      NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,5,6
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                             Date : 12/08/2025
                                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the

respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on

behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the

parties, the matter is considered at length and disposed

of accordingly.

2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for

seeking the following reliefs:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

"(A) To admit and allow this petition.

(B) To issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to forthwith grant the benefit of second higher pay scale from year 2003 to late Kamlaben P. Patel and implement the resolution dated 2.5.15 and office order dated 14.7.2015 & 14.8.2015 passed by Director, I.C.D.S. and directions of Commissioner, and pay the arrears of salary and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. thereon from the date it became due till realisation.

(C) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other appropriate relief as the nature circumstances of the case may require."

3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition

are as under:

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that

the wife of the petitioner late Kamlaben P. Patel had

joined the services with the respondent no.2 on 17.2.1979

and on completion of 9 years of service prevailing

circulars and government resolutions of the respondent

no. 1, she was granted first higher pay scale in the year

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

1988. Thereafter petitioner's wife Kamlaben P. Patel was

entitled to get second higher pay scale on completion of

requisite years of service as per the rule of the

Government, however, she was not granted second higher

pay scale during her entire service till she retired. The

wife of the petitioner superannuated on 30.11.2012. In

the year 2007, the respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat

issued government resolution revising the scheme of

grant of higher pay scale. By the said resolution, it was

provided to grant first higher pay scale on completion of

12 years of service and second higher pay scale on

completion of 24 years of service. It is further the case

of the petitioner in this petition that in the said G.R. it

specifically provided that those employees, who have got first higher grade after completion of 9 years, will be

entitle for Second Higher Grade after competition of 15

years.

3.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this

petition that the petitioner's wife late Kamlaben P. Patel

was entitled to get second higher pay scale on

completion of 24 years of service i.e. on completion of 15

years from the date of grant of first higher pay scale. In

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

spite of the aforesaid G.R. dated 2.7.2007, petitioner's

wife was not granted second higher pay scale till she

superannuated in the year 2012. It is further the case of

the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner's wife

made various representations and similarly situated

employees like the wife of petitioner, the respondent No.

1 on the basis of the Govt. Resolution dated 2.5.2015

has granted second higher pay scale to various employees

of the department and passed the order/ government

resolution in the said order name of petitioner's wife

Kamlaben P. Patel appears at Sr.No. 11. It is further

the case of the petitioner in this petition that as per the

subsequent record of the Government, the name of

Kamlaben P. Patel was reflected and she was entitled to the grant of second higher pay scale from the year 2003.

It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition

that despite the G.R. dated 02.07.2007, 02.05.2015, the

respondent-Authority has passed officer orders dated

14.07.2015 and 14.08.2015 i.e. by the Director, ICDS and

Director Commissioner, Woman and Child Development

Department, Gandhinagar and the wife of the petitioner

was not granted Higher Pay-Scale. Thereafter, the wife

of the petitioner has made several representations to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

respondents on 5.9.2016, 2.1.2017, 27.2.2017, 5.6.2017,

12.6.2017, 18.12.2017 and 15.10.2018 requesting to grant

her second higher pay scale, but the reasons best known

to respondent authorities, the petitioner's wife was

singled out despite government resolution dated

02.07.2007, 02.05.2015, and such office orders were

passed by the respondent - Authority and, therefore, he

has submitted that such orders are absolutely unjust and

improper. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.

4. Heard Mr. Shivang Thacker, learned advocate for

the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for

the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Henil Shah, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - State.

5.1 Mr. Shivang Thacker, learned advocate for the

petitioner has submitted that the wife of the petitioner

late Kamlaben P. Patel had joined the services with the

respondent no.2 on 17.2.1979 and on completion of 9

years of service prevailing circulars and government

resolutions of the respondent no. 1, she was granted first

higher pay scale in the year 1988. Thereafter petitioner's

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

wife Kamlaben P. Patel was entitled to get second

higher pay scale on completion of requisite years of

service as per the rule of the Government, however, she

was not granted second higher pay scale during her

entire service till she retired. The wife of the petitioner

superannuated on 30.11.2012. In the year 2007, the

respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat issued government

resolution revising the scheme of grant of higher pay

scale. By the said resolution, it was provided to grant

first higher pay scale on completion of 12 years of

service and second higher pay scale on completion of 24

years of service. He has submitted that in the said G.R.

it specifically provided that those employees who have

got first higher grade after completion of 9 years will be entitle for Second Higher Grade after competition of 15

years. He has submitted that the petitioner's wife late

Kamlaben P. Patel was entitled to get second higher pay

scale on completion of 24 years of service i.e. on

completion of 15 years from the date of grant of first

higher pay scale. In spite of the aforesaid G.R. dated

2.7.2007, petitioner's wife was not granted second higher

pay scale till she superannuated in the year 2012. He

has further submitted that the petitioner's wife made

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

various representations.

5.2 He has submitted that similarly situated employees

like the wife of petitioner, the respondent No. 1 on the

basis of the Govt. Resolution dated 2.5.2015 has granted

second higher pay scale to various employees of the

department and passed the order/ government resolution

in the said order name of petitioner's wife Kamlaben P.

Patel appears at Sr.No. 11. He has submitted that as

per the subsequent record of the Government, the name

of Kamlaben P. Patel was reflected and she was entitled

to the grant of second higher pay scale from the year

2003. He has submitted that despite the G.R. dated

02.07.2007, 02.05.2015, the respondent-Authority has

passed the office orders dated 14.07.2015 and 14.08.2015 i.e. by the Director, ICDS and Director Commissioner,

Woman and Child Development Department, Gandhinagar

and the wife of the petitioner was not granted Higher

Pay-Scale. Thereafter, the wife of the petitioner has

made several representations to the respondents on

5.9.2016, 2.1.2017, 27.2.2017, 5.6.2017, 12.6.2017,

18.12.2017 and 15.10.2018 requesting to grant her second

higher pay scale, but the reasons best known to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

respondent authorities, the petitioner's wife was singled

out despite government resolution dated 02.07.2007,

02.05.2015, and such office orders were passed by the

respondent - Authority and, therefore, he has submitted

that such orders are absolutely unjust and improper and

required to be interfered with.

5.3 He has further submitted that the only contention

raised in the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent-

Authority that the wife of the petitioner was granted

promotion to the post of Child Development Project

Officer on 04.02.2002, therefore, the wife of the petitioner

would become eligible for second higher pay scale from

04.02.2017 and, therefore, this contention is improper. In

view of the above, he prays to allow the present petition by directing the respondent-Authority to grant necessary

benefits of second higher pay-scale.

6.1 Per contra, Mr. Henil Shah, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -

State has referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the

respondent No.1 and has submitted that the petitioner's

wife completed 24 years of service in the year in 2003

and was superannuated on as Child 30.11.2012 while

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

serving Development Project Officer-II. He has submitted

that benefit of first higher pay-scale is granted to the

wife of the petitioner in the year 1988 and that is in

consonance with the Schedule-1 of the Finance

Department, Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 as

pay scale is 1640-2900. He has further submitted that as

per as per Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution

dated 16.08.1994 and Annexure-1 of the said Government

Resolution, whereby it is stated that for the posts with

different pay scales, the candidates would receive pay

scale as per his/her present pay scale including the

higher pay scale mentioned in the Annexure-1 of the

aforestated Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. He

has further submitted that as per Clause 3(8) of the aforestated Government Resolution, all the posts which

have come into existence after 01.06.1987 are granted

Higher Pay scale as per Annexure-1.

6.2 He has further submitted that as per the

Recruitment Rules dated 06.10.1983 of the Child

Development Project, there are four different posts for

Child Development Project Officer, such as Social Worker

(Pay Scale Rs.1640-2900), Block District Extension

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

Educator (Pay Scale Rs.1640-2900, District Extension

Public Educator (Pay Scale Rs.1400-2300), Health Nurse

(Pay Scale Rs.1400-2300) and Mukhya Sevika (Pay Scale

Rs.1400-2300). Therefore, as stated in the 1989

Recruitment Rules, there was only one sanctioned post of

Mukhya Sevika still as per the Government Resolution

16.08.1994, the 1st higher pay scale decided for Mukhya

Sevika is (Rs.1640-2900). He has further submitted that

the present petitioner became eligible for the First

Higher Pay scale on 17.02.1988, which should be in pay

scale of 1640-2900 and the petitioner became eligible for

Second Higher Pay Scale on 06.04.2003, which should be

in pay scale of 2000-3500. He has further submitted that

petitioner was granted promotion to the of post Child Development Project Officer on 04.02.2002 (Pay Scale Rs.

2000-3500). Therefore, the petitioner would become

eligible for 2nd Higher Pay Scale from 04.02.2017 and,

therefore, there is no substance in the present petition

and, therefore, the present petition is required to be

dismissed.

6.3 In support of his contention, he has relied on the

judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

of Thakorbhai Narottamdas Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat

reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-HC 245303, more particularly,

para 8 is relevant and has prayed to dismiss the present

petition as no case is made out by the petitioner.

7. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the

respondent No. 4 has support the submissions made by

learned AGP and has submitted that he has limited role

to play in the present matter as essentially, the dispute

is between the respondent-State Authority and the

petitioner.

8.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the

bar. It transpires that the wife of the petitioner has joined the services on 17.02.1979 and during her service,

the benefit of 1st Higher pay scale is granted in the

year 1988 and it seems that the same is of 1640-2900

which is consonance of Schedule-1 of the Finance

Department Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. The

petitioner's wife completed 24 years of service in the

year in the year 2003. It also transpires that she got

superannuated on as Child 30.11.2012 while serving

Development Project, Officer-II. It also transpires from

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

the record that as per clause 3 (3) of the Government

Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and Annexure-1 of the said

Government Resolution, whereby the candidates on posts

with different pay scales would receive pay scale as per

his/her present pay scale including the higher pay scale

mentioned in the Annexure-1 of the aforestated

Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and as per

Clause 3(8) of the aforesaid Government Resolution, all

the posts which have come into existence after

01.06.1987 are granted Higher Pay-scale as per

Annexure-1.

8.2 It also transpires that the petitioner was granted

promotion to the of post Child Development Project Officer on 04.02.2002 (Pay Scale Rs. 2000-3500).

nd Therefore, the petitioner would become eligible for 2

Higher Pay Scale from 04.02.2017.

8.3 In fact, as per first higher pay-scale 17.02.1988, if

the second higher pay-scale was granted then it could

have been granted on 06.04.2003, if promotion is not

granted to the petitioner and that pay-scale is of 2000-

3500.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

8.4 Furthermore, considering the judgment of Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Thakorbhai

Narottamdas Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in

2022 (0) AIJEL-HC 245303, more particularly, para 8 is

relevant, which reads as under:

"8. The whole object of granting a higher pay grade scale that is to provide relief to such employees who have stagnated on account of non availablity of the promotional avenues, in the present case, the petitioner had been granted the benefit and also been promoted after getting first higher pay grade scale that is on 14.09.1994, he was promoted to the post of Account Officer. Therefore, the petitioner is also not entitled for the second higher pay grade scale. At this juncture, it would be equally important to refer to the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. In the preamble itself, it is stated that those employees who have received first higher pay grade scale, and thereafter, received a promotion shall not be entitle for further benefits of second higher pay grade scale. Moreover, as per the scheme of higher pay scale in the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 specifically under Clause 3(2), it has been mentioned that those, who have received two promotion, shall not be entitled for the further benefit of higher pay scale. From the further reading of the Government Resolution, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is not entitled for the prayers regarding

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/21000/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025

undefined

second higher pay grade scale. The petitioner has been granted the first higher pay grade scale with effect from 17.08.1997 by the order dated 01.11.1992. The petitioner had received promotion after receiving the first higher pay grade scale on 14.09.1994. The petitioner had received the promotion after receiving the first higher pay grade scale, which stand is taken by the State Government relying upon the G.R. dated 16.08.1994."

8.5 Considering the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the present case, which is almost

similar to the judgment cited by the learned AGP,

whereby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has

specifically held that the whole object of granting higher

pay grade scale that is to provide relief to such

employees who have stagnated on account of non- availablity of the promotional avenues, in the facts of

the present case, the petitioner had been granted the

benefit of promotion in the year 2002 and, therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of higher pay-

scale in the 2003 as he is entitled to get the higher

pay-scale in the year 2017. In the meantime, the wife of