JUDGMENT : C.K. Thakker, J. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3751 of 1982 dated June 25, 1992. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order, directed the appellants to grant benefits of pay scale of Rs.290-480 to the petitioners with effect from April 1, 1977. 2. The respondents are original petitioners. They filed Special Civil Application No. 3751 of 1982 for an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside fixation of pay scale of work-charged drivers (petitioners) as per Annexure.E at Rs.260-400 being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and by directing the authorities to fix their salary at Rs.290-480 with effect from June, 1973 and to grant all consequential benefits on that basis. 3. The case of the petitioners as narrated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge was that they have been employed as Truck Drivers of Heavy Vehicles in Building & Construction Department (PWD). Initially, they were getting pay scale of Rs.130-240 and on the said basis, they were entitled to pay scale of Rs.290-480. Driver in other Departments who were similarly situated with the petitioners were getting pay scale of Rs.290-480 such as, Director of Agriculture, Director of Animal Husbandry, etc. The petitioners, however, were denied pay scale of Rs.290-480 and lesser salary was paid to them of Rs.260-430. They relied upon the Report of the Second Pay Commission. Chapter 22 thereof deals with work charged employees. At page 1, at Sr.No.47 truck driver's salary was fixed at Rs.290-480 who were in the pay scale of Rs.130-240.. Reliance was also placed on Government Resolution dated October 20, 1975, and on that basis, the petitioners contended that they were entitled to pay scale of Rs.290-480. Attention of the court was also invited to the revision of pay Rules, 1975 under which they would get pay scale of Rs.290-480. 4. No affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent authorities when the petition was admitted and placed for final hearing. The learned Single Judge heard the parties. The question before the learned Single Judge was as to whether the petitioners were entitled to pay scale of Rs.290-480 and if it was so, from which date, the petitioners would be entitled the said benefit. 5. The learned Single Judge heard the parties. The question before the learned Single Judge was as to whether the petitioners were entitled to pay scale of Rs.290-480 and if it was so, from which date, the petitioners would be entitled the said benefit. 5. Considering the arguments of both the sides and relying upon the decisions cited at the Bar, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners were entitled to pay scale of Rs.290-480 in accordance with law and they were entitled to such benefit of higher pay scale from April 1, 1977. The learned Single Judge observed that the representation was made by the petitioners on November 10, 1976, but the benefit was not extended. They, therefore, were constrained to approach this court by filing a petition. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipal & others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 1505 and unreported decision of this court in Special Civil Application No. 5843 of 1988 decided by the Division Bench of S.B. Majmudar J.(as he then was) and V.H. Bhairavia J. the said benefit was granted from April 1, 1977. Direction was also issued to compute the benefits of pay fixation within six months from the receipt of the writ. It is that order which is challenged by the appellants. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in granting benefits in favour of the appellants. It was submitted that the Pay Commission did not recommend revision of pay scales of the petitioners and no such order could have been passed in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was contended that in any case the learned Single Judge ought not to have given direction to extend the benefit of pay scale of Rs.290-480 from 1st April, 1977 when the petition was filed in 1982. 7. Ms. Shah, learned counsel for the respondents original petitioners, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. She submitted that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of Government Resolutions and circulars, the learned Single Judge has granted relief. 7. Ms. Shah, learned counsel for the respondents original petitioners, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. She submitted that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of Government Resolutions and circulars, the learned Single Judge has granted relief. The petitioners were entitled to get pay scale of Rs.290-480 from 1973 but the benefits have been extended by the learned Single Judge from April 1, 1977 in view of the fact that representation was made by the Union in November 1976. No objection could be raised against such legal, just and equitable order. Regarding pay scales, she stated that all throughout, the petitioners were treated as Heavy Vehicle Drivers and they were entitled to pay scales on that basis. An action of the State Government was, therefore, not only discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, but also arbitrary and unreasonable being violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. She also submitted that the authorities themselves were satisfied that the case was not worth contesting and hence no counter was filed in the petition and only after the judgment, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed and now affidavit is also submitted which may not be considered at this stage. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, no error of law has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the petition and granting benefits to the petitioners-respondents. 9. As stated in the petition, the petitioners were working in the Building & Construction Department as Heavy Vehicle Drivers. The question of revision of pay scale of Government Servants arose for the first time in 1969 and a Commission was appointed known as "Sarela Pay Commission" and thereafter in 1977 Second Pay Commission was appointed known as "Desai Pay Commission". The recommendation of the Pay Commission as reflected in Annexure. B to the petition was as under: Category Proposed pay scale. (a) Motor-car Driver 260-400 (b) (i) Drivers in charge of Bull-dozers, Air Compressor Vehicle, Trucks, Tractors, Road-Rollers, Port-dredgers etc. 290-480 (ii) Where there would be a category below (i) from which there may be promotion to (i) 260-400 10. It is specifically stated by the petitioners that in their case, there is no promotional avenue and hence their is the category (ii) of clause (b). 290-480 (ii) Where there would be a category below (i) from which there may be promotion to (i) 260-400 10. It is specifically stated by the petitioners that in their case, there is no promotional avenue and hence their is the category (ii) of clause (b). They are not Motor Car Drivers-Shoffers. They are Heavy Vehicle Drivers. It is also their case that initially they were getting pay scale of Rs.130-240 which was revised to Rs.290-480 and on that basis also, they were entitled to pay scale of Rs.280-480. All drivers of Director of Animal Husbandry as also of the Agriculture, Forest and Cooperation Department were getting pay scales of Rs.290-480 and there was no earthly reason to deny the said benefit to the petitioners. It is also not true that the Pay Commission did not re-command pay scale of Rs.290-480. It was submitted that in the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1975 Pay scale of the Truck Drivers was shown as Rs.290-480 for those drivers who were in pay scale of Rs.130-240. The action of the respondent authorities of not granting such benefit in favour of the petitioners was clearly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. 11. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, considered necessary entries in the report submitted by the Pay Commission. He also considered the Government Resolutions and held that the authorities were not justified in denying the benefits of the pay scales of rs.290-480 to the petitioners. 12. According to the petitioners, though they were similarly situated to other truck drivers and Heavy Vehicle Drivers working in Agriculture, Forest & Cooperation Department, as also under the Director of Animal Husbandry, preferential treatment was metered to drivers working in those two Departments and step motherly attitude was shown to the petitioners. All of them were in the pay scale of Rs.130-240 and in respect of all of them recommendation was made to revise pay scale from Rs.130-240 to Rs.290-480. The State Government accepted the recommendation of the Pay Commission qua the Agriculture, Forest & Cooperation Department and the Director of Animal Husbandry but not in respect to Heavy Vehicle Drivers in PWD. Such an action was, therefore, clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When the learned Single Judge granted such benefits there is no reason to deny those benefits to the petitioners. Such an action was, therefore, clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When the learned Single Judge granted such benefits there is no reason to deny those benefits to the petitioners. As promotional avenue was not there, pay scale of Rs.290-480 could not have been denied to the petitioners. 13. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge after considering the relevant material on record, has granted benefits and issued direction to the said authorities to fix pay scale of Rs.290-480 and there is no reason to interfere with the said direction. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 1091 , if the recommendation of the Pay Commission is accepted by the State Government in respect of some employed but is not accepted for others, and the court is satisfied that such action was arbitrary, discriminatory or unlawful, an appropriate direction can be issued by the Court. If the action is violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution, the Court can direct the authorities to take action in accordance with law. Again, if the employees are similarly situated the authority cannot deny the benefits which is given to one class of employees. Our attention in this connection was invited by Ms. Shah to M.S. Pandya v. State of Gujarat, 1996(2) GLH 1043 . In the instant case, according to the petitioners, they stand on better footing and they have stronger case than the drivers working in Agriculture, Forest & Cooperation Department and the drivers working in Directorate of Animal Husbandry. There was therefore, no legal or legitimate reason and/or ground to deny the benefit of pay scale of drivers which were given to the employees working in the aforesaid two Departments. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with that part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and/or ground to deny the benefit of pay scales of drivers which were given to the employees working in the aforesaid two Departments. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with that part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 14. The question then remains regarding the date from which such benefit should be extended to the petitioners. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with that part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 14. The question then remains regarding the date from which such benefit should be extended to the petitioners. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that even if the petitioners were entitled to such benefits, the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted the said benefit from April 1, 1977 but only from 1982 as the petitioners approached this court and the petition was filed in 1982. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they were entitled to the benefit of revised pay scales from 1973 and without there being any justifiable ground, the petitioners were denied those benefits. If this court holds that the action of the authority was not in accordance with law of depriving the petitioners of benefits of revised pay scale and such action was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights, the petitioners should not suffer. By depriving the benefits to which employees were entitled, the court would be permitting the respondents to take undue advantage of the position created by them. It is settled principle of law that a person cannot take undue advantage of his own wrong. In the instant case, once action of the respondent authority is held to be bad in law, the said action must be set aside and consequences must aware. In any case, when the learned Single Judge has considered the fact that in November 1976, representation was made by the Union drawing attention of the authorities to injustice meted out to them and in spite of such representation the authority had not done anything and direction is given to give effect to such pay scale with effect from 1st April about five months from the date of representation), which is again in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this court, there is no reason to interfere with that part of the order as well. 15. In our view, this contention is also well founded. As the action of the respondent authority is found to be unlawful and contrary to law, it can be said that the petitioners were deprived of legitimate benefits to which they were entitled. 15. In our view, this contention is also well founded. As the action of the respondent authority is found to be unlawful and contrary to law, it can be said that the petitioners were deprived of legitimate benefits to which they were entitled. Ordinarily, in these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the authorities to give benefit to the petitioners of revised pay scale from the date on which such benefits were extended to similarly situated employees. When said legal and equal treatment was not shown to the petitioners by the authority which it was under obligation to do so, they made representation in November, 1976. If, in the light of these facts, the learned Single Judge has directed the State to grant benefit to the petitioners from 1st April, 1977, it cannot be said that by doing so, illegality has been committed by Judge. Hence, even that part of the judgment does not require any interference. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 17. The learned Single Judge has directed the respondent authorities to extend all the financial benefits to the petitioners on the basis of the judgment within six months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the Court. After LPA was filed, interim relief was granted and judgment could not be implimented. Now, in view of dismissal of appeal, interim relief is vacated and it is directed that the authorities will fix pay scales of the petitioners on the basis of the judgment of the learned single Judge and will give all consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this court. Order accordingly