N. J. RANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner had earlier filed an application being Spl. C. A. No. 1218 of 1981 requesting therein that the respondent Government should sanction pay scale of Rs. 550-900 for the post of Marketing Inspector in the office of Directorate of animal Husbandary with effect from 1. 1. 73. ( 2 ) IN the said Directorate there was one post of Marketing Inspector and such isolated case was required to be dealt with on that basis by the Second Pay Commission popularly known as Desai Pay Commission. ( 3 ) SO are as the grievance stated in the earlier petition as well as in the present petition is that said Desai Pay Commission has not considered the case of this isolated post of Marketing, Inspector in the said directorate. Virtually therefore, the Pay commission is concerned the case of Marketing Inspector which post the petitioner was occupying at the relevant time was left totally not being considered. However whatever the pay scale of the petitioner was at the relevant time was taken into consideration, while applying the Revision of Pay Rule 1975 and the petitioners post was also dealt with and in his case against the pay scale of Rs. 250-550, he was given the pay scale of Rs. 475-800. ( 4 ) THE petitioner made several representations and requested that the peculiar fact followed in his case should be considered by the concerned authorities and instead of putting him in the pay scale of Rs. 475-800, he may be put in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 with effect from 1. 1. 73. The reason for him to do so was that originally nodoubt, he started his career with Bureau of Economic and Statistics and was working with the directorate of Animal Husbandary on deputation, when an opportunity arose he applied for the post of Statistical Supervisor and was selected as such in the year 1966. Copy of that order is produced today and it is dated 14. 4. 66. Thereafter by an order dated 25. 9. 82 it was declared that with effect from 1. 3. 72, he is confirmed on the post of Marketing inspector and because of his confirmation his lien on the post of Statistical Assistant was terminated. Copy of that order is produced today and it is dated 14. 4. 66. Thereafter by an order dated 25. 9. 82 it was declared that with effect from 1. 3. 72, he is confirmed on the post of Marketing inspector and because of his confirmation his lien on the post of Statistical Assistant was terminated. ( 5 ) THUS, a person who has started his career with one department and in the course of his service left, decided to change the department and he having succeeded in his efforts, he finally came to work with the department subsequently on his own and he continued to do so of Marketing Inspector, till he opted for voluntary retirement from 31. 1. 93. ( 6 ) IN this background, he approached this court for the first time in the year 1981 by way of Spl. C. A. No. 1218/81. As normally is the position of this court, his case was recommended to the State Government and concerned authorities were directed to consider the pending representations of the petitioner as well as the appeal which was pending as mentioned in para 10 of the said petition of the year 1981. ( 7 ) IN keeping with the directions thus given, the order dated 8. 2. 91 was passed pursuant to which the Under Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Agriculture, co-operation and Rural Development Department considered the case of the petitioner and passed the order dt. 9. 10. 91 Annexure-F page 89 which is the subject matter of this petition. ( 8 ) THE outcome of this consideration is against the petitioner. However, as can be seen from the order Annexure-F the Under Secretary who dealt with the case of the petitioner has cited two facts (1) is that he was selected in the aforesaid manner in the directorate of Animal Husbandary and (2) his was an isolated post in the said Directorate without any chances of future promotion. ( 9 ) AS can be seen from the said order at Annexure. F, the whole case of the petitioner has been considered on the basis of his having been promoted as Marketing Inspector in the said Directorate with effect from 24. 2. 72. The subsequent order of his having lost his lien as per order dt. 2s. 9. 82 has not been considered at all. F, the whole case of the petitioner has been considered on the basis of his having been promoted as Marketing Inspector in the said Directorate with effect from 24. 2. 72. The subsequent order of his having lost his lien as per order dt. 2s. 9. 82 has not been considered at all. ( 10 ) THE fact therefore, is that on the date of his confirmation which is 1. 3. 72 he had ceased to have anything to do with his parent department-Bureau of Economic and statistics and therefore, his case was required to be considered in the background and hierarchy relating to the said directorate. These things would have their own merits had there been future chances of promotion and regularly defined hierarchy almost of a pyramid like structure. ( 11 ) AS noted, above, so far as the post of Marketing Inspetor is concerned, there is an isolated post in the department without any future promotional chances in any hierarchy. ( 12 ) THE Under Secretary to Government in the course of his order Annexure-F has referred to the position available in the said Bureau of Economic and Statistics and has on that basis disposed of the case of the petitioner by holding that it is obligatory to revise the scale of Rs. 475 - 800 to that of Rs. 550-900 considering the request of the petitioner. His representation therefore, has been decided as if the petitioner was working with the bureau of Economics and Statistics at the time when Desai Pay Commission was going to undertake the task of revising the pay scale and request having been considered totally on wrong footing. In my opinion, it is a fit case where instead of directing the Government to consider the case of the petitioner which would be ultimately reving the petitioner from one department to another once again. This exercise has also been gone through once in the petition of the year 1981 when after ten years, in that petition a direction was given as per Annexure-F dated 9. 10. 91. In fairness to the Under Secretary to Government, it must be mentioned that he has borne in mind the fact of selection with effect from 24. 2. 72 but where does he got the date from, it is not possible to ascertain. Selection has been effected by order dated 14. 4. 10. 91. In fairness to the Under Secretary to Government, it must be mentioned that he has borne in mind the fact of selection with effect from 24. 2. 72 but where does he got the date from, it is not possible to ascertain. Selection has been effected by order dated 14. 4. 66 and the date of confirmation was given to the petitioner by an order dated 25. 9. 82. Copy of both these orders are taken on record. None the less the fact remains that the case of the petitioner has been dealt with by the Under Secretary to government only on the basis of the situation, available in Bureau of Economics and statistics. But the order of confirmation and that fact that lien has been lost, is considered at all. ( 13 ) THIS Court has dealt with the case of isolate post in Spl. C. A. No. 1556 of 1976, shere similarly situated persons of another department were given all me benefits. The case was of a Sr. Translator of this Court and the petitioner in that case compard his case with the Supervisor in the officer of Director of Language Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, gujarat Official Language (Legislative. .) Commission, Gandhinagar and the Gujarat legislative Secretariat, Gandhinagar. ( 14 ) THERE also this Court (Coram: B. K. Mehta, J) by the judgment dt. 24. 1. 80 was pleased to straightaway proceed to fix the pay scale. It was a case of isolated post attached to the High Court where similarly persons were dealt with in a different manner and therefore, the court had no alternative but to come to the rescue of the petitioner. I have persused the copy of the judgment shown to me by the petitioner. I have also the benefit of the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secretary, Finance Department and ors. vs. West Bengal Registration Service and Ors. , reported in 1993 (Supplement) (1) scc 153 wherein while speaking for the bench A. M. Ahmadi. J has set out in paras 12 and 13 some self imposed and well recongnised limitation on the powers of the court to deal with the pay fixation cases. Even in that, the situation is recognised, where the Court may have to intervene an decide the pay scale itself. J has set out in paras 12 and 13 some self imposed and well recongnised limitation on the powers of the court to deal with the pay fixation cases. Even in that, the situation is recognised, where the Court may have to intervene an decide the pay scale itself. In para 12 of the said judgment, it has been expressly staled that the Court has jurisdiction and aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. ( 15 ) IN the case before me I find that aforesaid requirements arc fulfilled in ample measure. Initially there was inaction for almost ten years and when, action was taken pursuant to the direction given by this Court in 1981, some facts have not been considered at all and the net result therefore, is that the petitioner out sheer exaspiration seems to have voluntarily retire though he left with the service of about four years and little more. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid background and the fact his lien was terminated in the earlier department on confirmation in the Directorate of Animal Husbandary and that there are no future promotional chances this is a fit case where pay scale of Rs. 550-900 should be granted. Accordingly the same is granted with effect from 1. 1. 73 with all consequential financial benefits including retirement benefits, arrears of salary, fixation of pension etc. On that basis the petitioner is also to be given consequential benefits of pay revision and pay Commission recommendations as accepted by the Government from time to time. Looking to the fact that considerable time has elapsed, the Suite Government is directed to carry out the directions as early as possible and in no case later then 31. 8. 94. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. .