JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P.J. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent authorities. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have claimed that the petitioners ought to have been granted the pay-scale of Rs.260-400 since their appointment in the year 1984. Petitioners were appointed as Packers-Cum-Sorter in Photo Registry department in the year 1984 in the pay scale of Rs.200-233. It is claimed that the said appointment ought to have been in the pay-scale of Rs.260-400, which ought to have been revised as Rs.950-1500 with effect from 01.01.1986, and further revision thereof with effect from 01.01.1996 should have been in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590. In substance it is the grievance that the initial appointment of the petitioners in the year 1984, in the pay-scale of Rs.200-232 was wrong and petitioners ought to have been appointed in the pay-scale of Rs.260-400. 3. The challenge is based mainly on the Recruitment Rules dated 26.10.1976 and 20.03.1985 for the post in question, which is on record, wherein it is pointed out that the post on which the petitioners were appointed was treated to be class-III post. It is the contention of learned advocate for the petitioners that since the petitioners were appointed on a post which by rules was treated to be a class-III post, the petitioners ought to have been given pay-scale of Rs.260-400 which is otherwise given to class-III cadres and it is pointed out that the cadre of Junior Clerk was getting the said pay-scale. Learned advocate for the petitioners also made comparison with the nature of work of the petitioners, who are Packers-cum-Sorters, in Photo Registry Department, who claim, if not higher, at least, equal pay-scale to that of Junior Clerk. Reliance is also placed on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.98 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.10365 of 1999, dated 17.02.2001 to claim that the petitioners ought to have been given the pay-scale claimed in this petition. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners, has further placed reliance on Rule 9(27) and Rule 9(35) of Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 ('the Rules, 1959', for short). He has also relied on Rule 161(1)(a)(b) of the Rules, 1959 to point out the different superannuation age. Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioners, has further placed reliance on Rule 9(27) and Rule 9(35) of Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 ('the Rules, 1959', for short). He has also relied on Rule 161(1)(a)(b) of the Rules, 1959 to point out the different superannuation age. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the corresponding new, renumbered provisions in 2002 Rules being Rules 11, 48 and 85, with specific reference to Note-2 in Rule 85 of Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 and Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) General Rules, 1967, to contend that the petitioners should get reliefs as prayed for in this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Neeraj Soni, by referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent authorities, contended that the petitioners were appointed as Packers-cum-Sorters in the pay-scale of Rs.200-233 then prevailing. The said pay-scale of Rs.200-233 came to be revised as Rs.775-1055 as per Revision of Pay Rules, with effect from 01.01.1986 which was further revised to Rs.2610-3540 with effect from 01.01.1996 and the petitioners are granted the said benefits. It is contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader that the pay-scales of the employees working under the State Government are also regulated by the Rules called Revision of Pay Rules which are framed from time to time. It is contended that even those rules are framed by the Government in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and has, thus, statutory force. It is therefore contended that the appointments of the petitioners, which are way-back in the year 1984, were made as per the rules prevailing then, and the said issue can not be permitted to be agitated after years and decades. Further, the challenge to the pay-scale is inconsistent with the statutory rules holding the field, which cannot be granted and therefore it is contended that the petition be dismissed. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that so far as comparison of nature of duty performed by Packers-cum-Sorters like the petitioners and that by Junior Clerks is concerned, considering different nature of work performed by different cadres, the pay-scales at the relevant time, were determined by the Government and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution may not undertake that exercise. So far as passing reference made by learned advocate for the petitioner, with regard to retirement age is concerned, it is contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader that the same is not the controversy in this petition. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and from the record, it transpires that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1984. Those appointments orders dated 19.07.1984 and 12.11.1984, which pertain to all the petitioners are on record. The said appointment orders, in terms it is stated that, the petitioners were appointed in the pay-scale of Rs.200-233. The petitioners approached this Court in the year 2001, claiming that since the petitioners were holding the post of Packers-cum-Sorters, which under the Recruitment Rules is termed as Class-III post, the petitioners ought to be given pay-scale which is otherwise given to Junior Clerk in Class-III cadre. Considering the material, which is on record, this Court finds that this is not mere delay of about seventeen years to claim pay-scale with retrospective effect, there is more to it. Not only two Pay Commissions were appointed in between, and the recommendations are also affected in the form of statutory rules effective from 01.01.1986 and 01.01.1996, in my view, the cause of action, though not candidly conceded by the petitioners, is the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.98 of 2000, dated 17.02.2001. At this juncture, let the contentions raised by the petitioners placing reliance on that judgment be dealt with. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioners sought to rely on the observations of the Division Bench, as referred above. In my view, the said judgment will not take the case of the petitioners any further since the controversy in that petition was that some employees, who were treated to be class-IV employees, by issuance of order in the year 1997, were treated to be class-III employees, resulting into curtailment of their superannuation age from 60 years to 58 years. Those petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge, against which petitioners therein had preferred above referred Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal also. While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench made certain observations with regard to pay-scale which could be claimed by those petitioners. Those petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge, against which petitioners therein had preferred above referred Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal also. While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench made certain observations with regard to pay-scale which could be claimed by those petitioners. In my view, point at issue in that matter was the challenge to the order passed by the authorities on the eve of retirement of petitioners therein, whereby those petitioners were made to retire two years earlier. Thus, the order of the Division Bench cannot be said to be on the issue which is involved in this petition and therefore, in my view, that judgment will not take the case of the petitioners further. Therefore, the contention of learned advocate for the petitioners that the case in hand is covered by the order of the Division Bench is rejected. Reverting back to the question of delay, it needs to be recorded that the judgment of the Division Bench, as referred above, is of the year 2001 and thereafter the present petition is filed in the year 2001 itself. 8. Reverting back to the claim of the petitioners for the pay-scale of Rs.260-400, I find that the petitioners, cannot be permitted to agitate so belatedly that the pay-scale at the time of their appointment in the year 1984 ought to have been something more. Learned advocate for the petitioners also tried to point out that petitioners had made representations from to time and even legal notice was also issued. However, that would not be sufficient explanation with regard to delay of about seventeen years that too in the circumstances which are recorded hereabove. Thus, on the ground of delay the petition needs to be rejected. 9. Even on merits, I find that the petitioners do not have the case. It is the settled position of law that it is for the employer to decide the pay-scale of respective cadre and the Court of law would be slow to interfere in such matters, unless the exercise of power in that regard is arbitrary. I do not find any such grievance in this petition nor I find any circumstance to come even nearer to any such finding. The petitioners were appointed in the pay-scale starting from Rs.200/-. I do not find any such grievance in this petition nor I find any circumstance to come even nearer to any such finding. The petitioners were appointed in the pay-scale starting from Rs.200/-. It was in consonance with the pay-scale prevailing then which had the force of statutory rules. The basis is comparison with the duty performed by Junior Clerk and the reference in the recruitment rules that the cadre in which the petitioners were working was treated as class-III post. In my view, it cannot be lost sight that there are Revision of Pay Rules framed by the Government from time to time, copies of which are on record. The said rules are also framed in exercise of powers by the Government under proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, in effect, want those statutory rules be nullified, without there being any challenge to it, which cannot be permitted. 10. So far as reliance placed and the reference made by learned counsel for the petitioners on different provisions of Bombay Civil Services Rules, Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002, as well as Gujarat (Classification and Recruitment) General Rules, 1967 is concerned, I find that there cannot be any dispute with regard to provisions made by the Government in that regard, however, this Court can not read those rules, independent of other rules which are also statutory rules, and as held above the Revision of Pay Rules are already implemented properly qua petitioners and the case of the petitioners is not found to be legally acceptable. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that at the time of framing rules in the year 1986 and 1996, the competent authority had not taken into consideration the grades of Class-III employees. In this regard, it is recorded that for the reasons recorded above, I do not find any force in this contention either and the same is rejected. 11. For the reasons recorded above this Court does not find any force in this petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.