JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. K.B.Pujara, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rutvij M. Bhatt, learned Advocate for the District Primary Education Officer, Valsad and Mr.Rasesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State authorities. 2. The facts as stated are that the petitioner had initially joined the service as teacher with the District Panchayat, Valsad on 21.12.1967. The date of birth of the petitioner is 19.09.1947. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2005. 3. The grievance voiced in this petition is that, on completion of seventeen years of service as a Teacher, the petitioner ought to have been granted senior scale, which was denied by the authorities. The ground for denial of the said senior scale, according to the respondent authority is that, the period of seventeen years of service has to be counted from 13.08.1970 and not from 21.12.1967, since there was break in service from 21.12.1967 to 13.08.1970, and considering 13.08.1970 the petitioner would complete seventeen years on 13.08.1987. The Higher Grade Scale Scheme of the Government vide Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991 became effective from 01.06.1987 and after coming into force of the said Scheme, the employees were not entitled to get senior scale. Under these circumstances, it is contended by Mr. Rutvij M. Bhatt, learned Advocate for respondent no. 1 that, the petitioner having not completed seventeen years of service prior to 01.06.1987, he was not entitled to senior scale and no exception can be made to the denial by the respondent authorities to the grant of senior scale to the petitioner. Mr. Rutvij M. Bhatt, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 1, by referring to the Office Order dated 25.05.1987, vehemently contended that, though the service of the petitioner was regularized with regard to breaks between 21.12.1967 and 12.08.1970, but the same was only for the purpose of pension, and as the order reads, the same was treated to be leave without pay and the claim of the petitioner that 21.12.1967 should be treated as a regular date of appointment, even for the purpose of calculation of seventeen years of service, to make him eligible to get senior scale prior to 01.06.1987 cannot be accepted and it would stand in contradiction to Office Order dated 25.05.1987, which is not challenged by the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rasesh Rindani has also supported the stand taken by learned Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also referred to affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 wherein, in substance, by referring to the Office Order dated 25.05.1987, the claim of the petitioner is denied. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record, this Court finds that the service of the petitioner is treated as continuous service 21.12.1967 by the authorities themselves. The contention that, though the said order dated 25.05.1987 treated the service continuous for the purpose of pension and therefore the same cannot be taken into consideration for any other purpose, needs to be rejected. Be it noted that, the said period was treated to be leave without pay and therefore, the service would thus be considered as continuous since 21.12.1967. If that is not done, it would nullify the effect of Office Order dated 25.05.1987, treating the period of breaks between 21.12.1967 to 12.08.1970 as leave without pay, the order which is sought to be relied by respondent themselves, to contest this petition. There is one more reason to negate this contention of the respondents. The ground for the breaks, which are ultimately condoned, is indicated to be 'availability' of trained teachers for the said periods. The breaks as reflected in the said order are 01.05.1968 to 28.07.1968, 30.04.1969 to 20.08.1969 and 01.05.1970 to 12.08.1970. The reasons for giving break to the teachers like the petitioner during this period was that the teachers, who were sent for training by school management could not be treated as under training during vacation period and therefore, those teachers were treated to be on duty in school during the said period, which was, in substance, vacation period. In vacation, though no teacher had to work, for accounting purpose, on one post two teachers could not have been shown and therefore teachers like the petitioner were not treated to be on duty in vacation. Subsequently, the authorities, in consonance with the instructions of the Government, passed Officer Order regularizing the said period treating it to be leave without pay and counting it as continuous service for the purpose of pension. Subsequently, the authorities, in consonance with the instructions of the Government, passed Officer Order regularizing the said period treating it to be leave without pay and counting it as continuous service for the purpose of pension. In this background to treat the petitioner in regular employment from 13.08.1970 and not from 21.12.1967, would defeat the Office Order dated 25.05.1987, in spirit, by which the service of the petitioner is treated to be regularized for the interregnum period. Under these circumstances, I am unable to agree with the contention of the respondents that though the petitioner had initially joined service on 21.12.1967, and inspite of the fact that by the Office Order dated 25.05.1987 the period of breaks for the interregnum is regularised also as recorded above and still, the petitioner will be treated to be in service from 13.08.1970 only and not from 21.12.1967, for the purpose of calculation of senior scale. Be it noted that, because of this stand of the respondent no. 1, it is not that grant of selection grade is delayed by three years, the stand of the respondent is such that if 13.08.1970 is treated as the effective date of joining of service, it would take, completion of seventeen years beyond 01.06.1987 and that would disentitle the petitioner to claim that benefit altogether. Thus the stand of respondent which even otherwise is held to be not legal, operates so harshly against the petitioner, not by delaying the grant of senior scale but denying it altogether. Considering the totality of the facts, it is held that, for the purpose of grant of senior scale to the petitioner on completion of his seventeen years of service, his initial date of joining the service, which is 21.12.1967, be taken into consideration. It is noted that, it is not in dispute that, if 21.12.1967 is treated to be the date of joining, the petitioner would complete seventeen years of service on 21.12.1984, and that would entitle him to receive the senior scale from 21.12.1984. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this Court arrives at the judgment and passes order as under. i. The petitioner is held to be entitled to the senior scale on completion of his seventeen years of service, with effect from 21.12.1984. Respondents are directed to pass necessary order in this regard within a period of two months from today. ii. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this Court arrives at the judgment and passes order as under. i. The petitioner is held to be entitled to the senior scale on completion of his seventeen years of service, with effect from 21.12.1984. Respondents are directed to pass necessary order in this regard within a period of two months from today. ii. The respondents are further directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner, including Revision of Pay and Pension, and the arrears thereof shall be paid to him, within a period of three months from today. 7. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.