[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Natavarbhai Lavajibhai Oza vs State Of Gujarat on 13 April, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3144 of 2026
==========================================================
NATAVARBHAI LAVAJIBHAI OZA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. FORAM TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 13/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Foram Trivedi, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule
on behalf of respondent State.
2. The petitioners by way of this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India pray for a direction that the pay of
the petitioners be put at par with their juniors who are
appointed or or after 01.01.2006 and to place the petitioners at
the stage of Rs.10810 in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 (PB2)
with effect from 01.01.2006.
3. The petitioners were appointed on different dates as a
Shikshan Sahayaks and placed on a fixed salary of Rs.4500 for
a period of five years. As on August 2005, the petitioners were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000. By the coming into force of
the 6th Pay Commission, their pay-scale came to be revised
and implemented with effect from 01.01.2006 and they were
placed in the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with the grade pay of
Rs.4200. Thereafter, the State through the Finance Department
came out with a resolution dated 14.09.2011 by which the
entry level pay was revised with effect from 01.01.2006. As
per the said government resolution, the basic pay was fixed at
Rs.10810 with grade pay of Rs.4400 as a result of which
employees junior to the petitioners got more basic pay than
the petitioners.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala appearing on behalf of
the petitioners would submit that an identical issue came up
for consideration before this court in Special Civil Application
No. 12207 of 2014 and this Court allowed the petition and
directed the authority to step up the pay of the petitioners
therein by placing them at the pay band with arrears from
01.01.2006 and to pay periodical rise and all consequential
benefits.
5. Admittedly, when it is a matter of record that the
petitioners were appointed much prior to the other employees
junior to the present petitioners, the essential ingredient of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
'stepping up of pay' in favour of the petitioners who were
otherwise drawing less pay in the basic of Rs. 10230 would
apply.
6. This Court in Special Civil Application No. 12207 of 2014
and allied matters has considered the very issue and observed
accordingly:-
"20. Here in the present case also, the petitioners were appointed
prior to January 01,2006 and their juniors were appointed on or
after January 01, 2006, however, the pay in pay band of the
juniors of the petitioners was fixed higher than that of the present
petitioners and, thus, there is apparent anomaly in the salary being
paid to the petitioners as against their juniors.
21. So far as the issue in question is concerned, it depends upon
the applicability of the principle of stepping up. Admittedly, the
petitioners had been appointed earlier to the category of Private
Secretary, Grade-I, and some of their juniors got their pay fixed at
a higher level than the petitioners on implementation of the Sixth
Central Pay Commission in view of Rules, 2009. To remove the
anomaly of a Government servant promoted or appointed to a
higher post eartier drawing a lower rate of pay in that post than
another Government servant junior to him in the lower grade and
promoted or appointed subsequently to the higher post, the
principle of stepping up of the pay is applied. In such cases the
pay of the senior officer in the higher post is required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior
officer in that higher post. The stepping up is required to be done
with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the
junior officer. On refixation of the pay of the senior officer by
applying the principle of stepping up, the next increment of the
said officer would be drawn on completion of the requisite
qualifying service with effect from the date of the refixation of
pay. This principle becomes applicable when the junior officer and
the senior officer belong to the same category and the post from
which they have been promoted and in the promoted cadre the
junior officer on being promoted later than the senior officer gets a
higher pay. This being the principle of stepping up contained in
the Fundamental Rules and admittedly the petitioners being seniors
and having been appointed earlier than many of their juniors who
were appointed later to the posts in question, the principle of
stepping up should be made applicable to the petitioners with
effect from the date their juniors in the same cadre get appointed
and their pay was fixed at a higher slab than that of the
petitioners. The stepping up should be done in such a way that the
anomaly of juniors getting higher salary than the seniors in the
same category would be removed and the pay of the seniors like
the petitioners would be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as
fixed for their junior officers. In fact, such anomaly ought to have
been removed at the end of the respondent authority itself in view
of the provisions of Rule 7(1)(A)(ii) as well as also taking into
considerution Note 4 as enumerated in Rules, 2009. Hence, this
Court is of the opinion that the impugned Government Resolution
dated September 14, 2011, deserves to be read down insofar as it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
provides for the entry level pay of the employees appointed as
fresh recruits on or after January 01, 2006 in the Pay-band 2
(Rs.9300-34800), having Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- at Rs.12540/- and
having Grade Pay of Rs.4400/- at Rs.10810/-, without taking into
consideration the fact that the senior appointed prior to January
01, 2006, in the same cadre like the petitioners are placed at the
pay in pay band of Rs.12090/- and Rs.9300/- respectively and
thereby, resulting into patent anomaly and discrimination. The
question is answered accordingly.
22. Reference is also required to be made of the decision of this
Court rendered on November 28, 2011 in the case of Maganbhai
Arjanbhai Vegda, etc. v. State of Gujarat and others, while dealing
with Special Civil Application No.12541 of 2011 to Special Civil
Application No.12598 of 2011. It would be profitable to reproduce
the relevant observations and findings of the said decision, which
read as under:
12. However, the Government Resolution dated 08.05.1970
of the Finance Department with regard to pay fixation and
removal of anomaly was authorized by clause prescribed in
the method of stepping up to be followed and conditions
laid down therein may not be fulfilled. The conditions
enumerated in para 3 of the said Government Resolution,
read as under:
3. The method of stepping up' shall be employee subject to
the following conditions, all of which must be satisfied:
[a] the Government Servants concerned should belonging to
the same cadre and the posts in which they have been
promoted should be identical and in the same cadre;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
[b] The time-scale of the pay of the lower and higher posts
in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical.
[c] But for his promotion to post earliest the Government
Servant concerned would have been eligible to draw pay in
the lower post, at a stage not lower than that admissible to
the Junior person immediately prior to the latter's promotion
to highest post;
[d] The anomaly is directly attributable to the provision of
the Government Resolution, Finance Department No.Pay-
1264/463, dated the 5th January, 1965.
The above conditions reveal that Government servants
concerned should belong to the same cadre and the posts in
which they have been promoted should be identical and in
the same cadre and time scale of the pay of the lower and
higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should
be identical.
13. The above two conditions viz. 3(a) and (b) if read
together with the purpose of issuing the said Government
Resolution are to remove heartburning and dissatisfaction
amongst senior employees, who are receiving lower pay
scale than the juniors or at least in the same pay scale as
given to the juniors. The facts of the case would reveal that
merger of two cadres was effected to remove anomalies
pursuant to the directions given by the High Court in earlier
round of litigation and Government Resolution of 10.10.2007
was issued. However, clause Nos.6 & 7 of the said
Government Resolution instead of removing anomaly has
complicated the pay band receivable by the petitioners
discriminating them and the very purpose of removing heart
burning is frustrated. If the above Government Resolution is
seen in the context of Revision of Pay Scale Rules, 1998 and
subsequent revision of rules it transpires that clause 6 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
Government Resolution dated 10.10.2007 is contrary to
condition No.4 of the Government Resolution and also
conditions Nos.3(13) of Government Resolution dated
16.08.1994. In case of Gurcharan Singh Grewal in paras 17
and 18 of the said judgment held as under:
17. Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra's
submissions about the difference in increment in the scales
in which Appellant 1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the
same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a
senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such
circumstances, even if there was a difference in the
incremental benefits in the scale given to Appellant 1 and
the scale given to Shri Shori, such anomaly should not have
been allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified
so that the pay of Appellant 1 was also stepped up to that
of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of
Appellant 2.
18. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court
in this regard or the submissions made in support thereof by
Mr. Chhabra, since the very object to be achieved is to
bring the pay scale of Appellant 1 on a par with that of his
junior. We are clearly of the opinion that the reasoning of
the High Court was erroneous and Appellant 1 was also
entitled to the same benefit of pay parity with Shri Short as
has been granted to Appellant 2.
14. That similar was the case decided by the Division Bench
of this Court when the Laboratory Assistants working under
the Directorate of Higher Education, Directorate of Technical
Education and non-government colleges affiliated to the
Gujarat University were denied parity in the pay scale and
wages. Relying on doctrine of equal pay for equal work, the
Division Bench directed the State authorities to treat Lab
Assistant of non-grant Government colleges at par with Lab
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
Assistants of Directorate of Higher Education working with
Government Department. However, the case of the
petitioners herein is on a better footing inasmuch as they are
working under the same directorate and there is no dispute
about merger of post and cadre on which they are now
working and receiving less salary than their juniors. Such
discrimination on the face of it is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India and respondents are duty-bound to
give the pay scale of the petitioner at par with those
employees who are junior to the petitioners working on the
same cadre and post. Even seniority list relied and placed on
record by the petitioners is also not in dispute. The aforesaid
decision was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated January 08, 2013 while dealing with
Letters Patent Appeal No.1349 of 2012 preferred by the State
of Gujarat. It would be beneficial to regurgitate the relevant
observations and findings of the said decision, which read as
under:
4. As such, it is not a matter where the parity in the pay-
scale is to be considered between two separate and
independent cadres which normally is to be considered and
examined by the expert body. But in the present case, the
question to be considered as considered by the learned
Single Judge was for stepping up of the pay-scale on
account of circumstance that the junior to the petitioner due
to revision in the pay-scale has been granted higher pay-
scale or junior to the petitioner has been found entitled for
higher pay-scale, which should be granted to petitioner.
Further, the entitlement of stepping up of the pay scale is
within the same cadre and same post and not in different
post of different cadre.
5.It is an admitted position that Shri M.N.Chauhan is junior
to the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that he has
been granted higher pay-scale of Foreman after revision from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
1996 since he had completed 9 years of service after
whereas in case of the petitioner they were granted higher
pay-scale for the post of Supervisor Instructor on 02.03.1993
with effect from 01.06.1987.
6.It is also an admitted position that in the revision of pay-
scale of 1996, the pay-scale for the post of Craft Instructor
(which was lower post) and the post of Supervisor Instructor
has been merged and one pay-1400-2300. Under this
circumstance, the only higher pay-scale, if any, employee is
to receive would be to the post of Foreman if considered
eligible and granted after 01.01.1996. It is not case of the
appellant that Shri.M.N.Chauhan-junior to the petitioner has
been wrongly granted higher pay scale of Foreman from the
post of Supervisor Instructor but the contentions are that
since the benefit of higher pay scale already granted prior
01.01.1996 is not to be reopened and it is to be deemed
that the higher pay-scale is already granted to the petitioner
prior to 01.01.1996 and second time higher pay scale would
not be available.
7.The contention may prima-facie appear to be attractive,
but upon close scrutiny, it appears that it is not a matter of
granting of higher pay-scale, but it is a matter of stepping
up of the pay-scale on account of circumstance that the
junior is drawing higher pay-scale in comparison to the
senior. As per the Government Resolution dated 10.10.2007,
in the clause no.5, stepping up is made permissible.
Therefore, Clause No.5 would be applicable in the present
case and not Clause No.6 as sought to be canvassed on
behalf of the appellant, since, it is not for grant of higher
pay-scale, but is of stepping up of pay-scale on account of
circumstance that the juniors were drawing higher pay-scale
in comparison to the seniors. The decision of the Apex Court
upon which reliance has been placed by learned Government
Pleader Mr.P.K.Jani is ill-founded inasmuch as in both the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
cases, the Apex Court was not considering the issue of
stepping up of the pay-scale on account of juniors receiving
higher pay-scale. Moreover, the entitlement of the junior for
higher pay scale is not under question or under challenge in
the preset proceedings nor it is the stand of the State
Government that the juniors were granted higher pay-scale
wrongly. Therefore, we find that both the decisions are of
no help of the appellant..
The Division Bench relying upon the decision of the Apex
Court held as to how stepping up is a means for those
sailing in the same cadre.
23. On a conspectus of the legal and factual scenario discussed
above, the following order is passed:
1.All the petitions are hereby allowed.
2.Insofar as the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.12207 of
2014 are concerned, the respondent-authority is directed to step up
their pay by placing them at Rs.12,540/- in the Pay-band of
Rs.9300-34800 (PB-2) as prayed for, with arrears from January 01,
2006 and to pay periodical rise and with all consequential benefits.
3.So far as the petitioners of Special Civil Application. Nos. 18619
of 2014, 2965 of 2015 and 4716 of 2015 are concerned, the
respondent-authority is directed to step up the pay of the
petitioners by placing them at Rs.10,810/-in the Pay-band of
Rs.9300-34800 (PB-2) as prayed for. with arrears from January 01,
2006 and to pay periodical rise and with all consequential benefits.
4. The pay of the petitioners in the respective pay-scales be
calculated and accordingly, they be paid such amounts on regular
basis. Such exercise of calculation of pay of the petitioners be
completed within a period of three months from today. Insofar as
the amount of arrears is concerned, the petitioners be paid the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3144/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of their entitlement.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be, however, no
order as to costs.
7. In view of the above, the petition also deserves to be
allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are
directed to step up the pay of the petitioners at the stage of
Rs.10810 in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with effect from
01.01.2006 and pay all consequential benefits in light of the
revision of pay accordingly. The entire exercise to be
completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
receipt of the writ of the order of this Court. Rule is made
absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
PARMAR CHIRAG
