JUDGMENT VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, J. 1. This appeal has been admitted and the Civil Application has been disposed of extending the interim relief granted by this Court till 21.3.2014 and therefore, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. We heard Mr. H.J. Shah learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Girish Patel learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Shrimali learned advocate for the respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. H.J. Shah learned advocate for the appellant has heavily relied on the ground urged in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the writ court ought not to have issued writ when the performance of the respondent was not at par. He has further urged that the respondent was granted higher pay-scale from 1996 but he has claimed from 1989. It is submitted that it is the State Government who gives 50% grant and the 50% by Indian Council of Social Science Research. 4. The learned Single Judge, in para-5 and 6 has observed as under: (5) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties ands having gone through the record, this Court finds that, from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents, it is clear that senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 was being granted to the incumbents, on completion of seven years service as Assistant Professors. It is also reflected in affidavit-in-reply and documents annexed therewith that, for the purpose of calculating seven years of service, entire service, whether on project or regular, was taken into consideration. In case of other similarly situated persons also the calculation was made like this only. It is not in dispute that the date of joining the service of the petitioner is 12.11.1982. Thus the petitioner was entitled to the said scale with effect from 12.11.1989 which is prayed for in this petition. Respondents have not been able to point out as to what was the decision with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner with effect from 12.11.1989. The agenda of 14.7.1990 refers to confirmation of incumbents, working on the post of Assistant Professor but it does not deal with grant of senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 on completion of seven years of service. The agenda of 14.7.1990 refers to confirmation of incumbents, working on the post of Assistant Professor but it does not deal with grant of senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 on completion of seven years of service. The contention with regard to the application of mind by the authorities in the year 1995, that let this benefit be deferred for the time being, would not take the case of the respondent Page 3 of 6 authorities any further, in absence of material on record denying it to the petitioner from the year 1989. Even if the proceedings of 23.9.1995 is taken into consideration, as sought to be contended by the respondents, even that would not be of any help to the respondents since no change had taken place with regard to academic performance of the petitioner from 23.9.1995 to 1.10.1996 and still with effect from 1.10.1996 the petitioner is granted the said benefit. Thus, it is not even the case of the respondent authorities that the said benefit was not deserved by the petitioner in the year 1996. If the action of granting benefit in the year 1996, is looked at in juxta position of reasonings adopted in the meeting dated 23.9.1995, it would lose its significance and in any case it could not have been used to justify denial of the benefits to the petitioner in the year 1989. As observed above, it is the affidavit-in-reply itself which makes it clear that it was the practice to grant benefit on completion of seven years and thus petitioner was entitled to the same on completion of seven years with effect i.e. from 12.11.1989. Under these circumstances, the relief, as prayed for in the petition, cannot be denied to the petitioner. It is held that the petitioner was entitled to the senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 with effect from 12.11.1989 and it is further held that the petitioner is entitled to receive all consequential benefits. (6) Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Shah, at this stage, submitted that the respondent Institute receives 50% grant from the State Government and 50% from Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi. It is contended that in absence of these two authorities being party respondents in the matter, the order granting relief to the petitioner that may be passed by this Court, may be difficult to be implemented by the respondent Institute. It is contended that in absence of these two authorities being party respondents in the matter, the order granting relief to the petitioner that may be passed by this Court, may be difficult to be implemented by the respondent Institute. It is also contended that in the event the respondent Institute does not receive grant from these authorities, it would be difficult to make payment to the petitioner. In this regard, it is observed that, had the senior pay-scale been granted to the petitioner by the respondent Institute itself, at the relevant time, the authorities which are referred to by learned counsel for the respondent Institute, would not have denied grant towards the salary of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that these Institutes would not consider the proposal of the respondent Institute, to release the grant to comply with the benefits flowing from this judgment, reasonably. In absence of those authorities being party respondents in this petition, no direction can be given to them, however, it is open to the respondent Institute to put these observations to the notice of the concerned authorities, if an occasion so arises. 5. In view of above observation made by the learned Single Judge, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view then the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, just because the State Government and Indian Council of Social Science Research were not party respondents before the learned Single Judge and they have been impleaded as party respondents in this Letters Patent Appeal by the appellant, but they chosen not to appear before this Court though they are served as per the statement made by Mr. H.J. Shah learned advocate for the appellant, and therefore, the difficulty which would be faced by the appellant now also gets public related, and therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view then the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. Writ of this order be also sent to the newly added respondents no. 3 and 4.