JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a former employee of the Gujarat Energy Development Agency, an instrumentality of a 'State', has prayed for the following reliefs: "13(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 9-10-2001 issued by the fact respondent herein, turning down the representation of the petitioner for her entitlement in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 which has been prescribed under the Fifth Pay Commission which is sought to be implemented by the department. (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 which is the real pay-scale equated in the existing pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 which has been equated from 1.1.1986 which is amply clear from Ann. 'E' which the petitioner is continuously drawing; (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000. (D) Be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed fit in the interest of justice;" 2. The case of the writ applicant may be summarized as under: 2.1 The writ applicant joined the services of the Agency vide the office order dated 25th January 1986 issued by the Administrative Officer as a Receptionist-cum-Telephone/ Telex Operator on temporary basis on the pay scale of Rs. 310/-. 2.2 On 4th November 1993, an office order was passed, which reads as under: "As per the decision of the Government body of Gujarat Energy Development Agency in its 81st meeting to redesignate different posts, Director, GEDA is pleased to change the designation of Ms. S.H. Buch from "Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator/Telex Operator" to "Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator" in terms of GEDA Service Rules with immediate effect. This change in designation does not involve assumption of higher duties and responsibilities. S.H. Buch from "Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator/Telex Operator" to "Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator" in terms of GEDA Service Rules with immediate effect. This change in designation does not involve assumption of higher duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, her pay scale, pay and allowances, date of increment and other terms and conditions of service will remain unchanged, as per GEDA's service rules as amended from time to time." 2.3 It appears from the materials on record that the State Government vide its resolution dated 10th February 1999 decided to equate the post of Telephone Operator with that of the Junior Clerk with effect from 1st January 1996. As a result, the pay scale of the writ applicant got reduced. According to writ applicant, she is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4000 - 6000/-, but on account of such decision taken by the State Government, she was put in Rs. 3050 - 4590/-. It is her case that she preferred a representation in this regard addressed to the Director, Gujarat Energy Development Agency, Vadodara, dated 23rd August 2001. The representation addressed to the Agency was forwarded to the State Government. The State Government vide its letter dated 9th October 2001 addressed to the Agency informed about the disposal of the representation in the following terms: "To, The Director, Gujarat Energy Development Agency, Suraj Plaza-II, Baroda-5. Sub : Representation from Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator of your Agency for the restoration in the original pay scale. Sir, I am directed to invite your kind attention to your letter No. Gujarat Energy Development Agency/DIR/5th Pay/2001/7672 dt. 28th August 2001 on the subject cited above and to inform you that the request made by Mrs. Sadhana Buch, Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator of your Agency cannot be agreed to Government and also cannot make any changes in the Appendix-A of this department letter No. PGR-1098-1163.B dt. 27.2.2001, which may please be noted. Your faithfully, sd/- (Vanraj Vanzara) Under Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Energy & Petrochemicals Department." 2.4 Hence, this writ application. 3. Mr. P.Y. Divyeshwar, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the decision of the State Government resulting in the reduction of the pay could be termed as erroneous and illegal. According to him, even if a policy decision was taken to merge the post of Telephone Operator with the Junior Clerk, the pay of the writ applicant should have been protected. According to him, even if a policy decision was taken to merge the post of Telephone Operator with the Junior Clerk, the pay of the writ applicant should have been protected. He would submit that the resolution could have been made effective from a retrospective date. At best, it could have been made effective from the date of its issue i.e. 10th February 1999. The conditions of service could not have been disturbed with a retrospective effect. The writ applicant was already in the higher scale of Rs. 1200 - 2040/-, and therefore, her pay scale should have been fixed accordingly i.e. Rs. 4000 - 6000/-. 4. The learned counsel has invited my attention to the Gujarat State Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1987. He relies upon Rule 23.3 which is at page 32 (Annexure; "G") to this application. The Rule 23.3 reads as under; "The pay scale of Rs. 1200 - 2040 for the post of Telex Operator has now been changed to Rs. 950 - 1500 and only the Typist will be appointed on the said post from 1st January 1991 onwards. The monthly Telex Allowance of Rs. 80 will be given to such Typist. At present those employees discharging their duties as Telex operator in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 - 2040, their pay scale of Rs. 1200 - 2040 will be as the personal pay scale." 5. Relying upon the aforesaid rules, it has been vehemently submitted that the pay of the writ applicant was to be protected as the personal pay. This aspect, according to the learned counsel, has not been considered while deciding the representation. Mr. Dave, therefore, prays that there being merit in this writ application, the same may be allowed and the reliefs prayed for be granted. 6. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State of Gujarat and the learned counsel appearing for the Agency. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Agency submitted that the decision to merge the post of Telephone Operator with the cadre of Junior Clerk with effect from 1st January 1991 was that of the State Government. Since the Agency is a Grant-in-Aid organization receiving 100% administrative grant, it has to follow the instructions of the State Government. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Agency submitted that the decision to merge the post of Telephone Operator with the cadre of Junior Clerk with effect from 1st January 1991 was that of the State Government. Since the Agency is a Grant-in-Aid organization receiving 100% administrative grant, it has to follow the instructions of the State Government. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Agency: "4....I say that the petitioner was given appointment as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator/Telex Operator in January 1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 290-10-320-12-380-EB-15-485-EB-18-575-20-635. Copy of the appointment order is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I hereto. It is submitted that in the Fourth Pay Commission the pay scale has been revised to Rs. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-1200 as per sanction letter of Energy & Petrochemicals Department vide sanction letter dated 19.7.1988. Copy of the said sanction letter is enclosed herewith as Annexure-II. It is submitted that the respondent agency has changed the designation from Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator/Telex Operator to Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator vide Office Order dated 4.11.1993 without changing pay scale, pay and allowances, date of increment and other service conditions. Copy of the said office order is enclosed herewith as Annexure-III. It is submitted that while sanctioning Fifth Pay vide letter dated 27.2.2001, the State Government revised the scale of Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator to Rs. 3050-4590, the corresponding scale in the fourth pay was Rs. 950-1500 and not Rs. 1200-2040. Copy of the said letter dated 27.2.2001 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-IV. It is submitted that the petitioner had requested the State Government for restoration of original pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040, but the State Government turned down the request of the petitioner vide letter No. PGR-10-2001-2941-B dated 9.10.2001 and refused to amend the Appendix-A of the sanction letter dated 27.2.2001. Copy of the letter of the State Government issued to the Director of the Agency, which was received by the Agency on 12.10.2001, is enclosed herewith as Annexure-V. It is submitted that the State Government has taken above stand in view of GR No. KBHY-1091-3698-G.4 dated 10.2.99 of the Finance Department according to which the post of Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator was equated with the cadre of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1991. It is submitted that Gujarat Energy Development Agency (GEDA) is a grant aided organization getting 100% administrative grant from the State Government and thus working under direct control and supervision of the State Government. The pay scales given to GEDA staff is sanctioned by State Government and GEDA has to follow the instructions of the State Government." "8. With reference to para 4 of the petition, I say that the designation has not been tampered. It is submitted that an order No. GEDA/ADMN/93/8097 dated 4.11.1993 was issued giving clear cut order that the change in designation does not involve assumption on higher duties and responsibility and accordingly petitioner's pay scale, pay and allowance, date of increment and other terms and conditions of service will remain unchanged as per GEDA's Service Rules as amended from time to time and no separate clarification was issued. It is denied that the designation was sought to be tampered with alleged. It is not correct to say that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as alleged. Rest of the contentions are not admitted. 9. With reference to para 5 & 6 of the petition, it is denied that Resolution of the State Government cannot have any effect to the employees who were already in the service of the department as alleged. It is denied that pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 is not applicable to the petitioner as alleged. It is denied that salary of the petitioner is required to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as alleged. Reference to the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 is misconceived and I have already dealt with the same hereinabove and therefore I am not repeating the same. It is denied that the representation has been evasively dealt with by the Secretary to Government of Gujarat and no reasons have been indicated and it is difficult to know the application of mind on the part of the authority as alleged. It is denied that there is sphinx silence in respect of the issue raised by the petitioner as alleged. Rest of the averments and allegations are denied hereby. 10. With reference to para 7 of the petition, it is submitted that the designation has been changed vide order dated 4.11.1993 and the terms of appointment and pay scale kept unchanged. It is denied that there is sphinx silence in respect of the issue raised by the petitioner as alleged. Rest of the averments and allegations are denied hereby. 10. With reference to para 7 of the petition, it is submitted that the designation has been changed vide order dated 4.11.1993 and the terms of appointment and pay scale kept unchanged. It is submitted that GEDA is a grant aided organization getting 100% administrative grant from State Government and thus working under direct control and supervision of the State Government. The pay scales given to GEDA staff is sanctioned by State Government and GEDA has to follow the instructions of the State Government. It is denied that designation is tampered with which changes the entire complex as alleged. It is not correct to say that there is any alleged automatic down gradation in future as alleged. It is denied that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 which has been prescribed in the Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.96 as alleged. Rest of the contentions are not admitted. 11. With reference to para 8 of the petition, it is denied that the resolution issued by Govt. of Gujarat dated 19.2.99 has no effect at all and there is any alleged tampering with the status and designation of the petitioner as alleged. It is denied that there is any alleged tampering done without following due process of law as alleged. It is denied that the resolution is not applicable to the petitioner as alleged. It is denied that the impugned order dated 9.10.2001 is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of Article 14and 16 of the Constitution of India as alleged. Rest of the contentions are not admitted. 12. With reference to para 9 of the petition, it is denied that the petitioner is entitled to any alleged legitimate claim and the petitioner's pay scale is required to be fixed at Rs. 4000-6000 under the Fifth Pay Commission as alleged. It is denied that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 as alleged. Reference to the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 is misconceived in the facts and circumstances of the case." 8. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the State Government has placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State Government. "6. 4000-6000 as alleged. Reference to the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 is misconceived in the facts and circumstances of the case." 8. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the State Government has placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State Government. "6. I say and submit that, the petitioner came be appointed as Telephone/Telex Operator in January 1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 290-635 in the GEDA (i.e. Respondent No. 2,) by time span, the State of Gujarat had accepted the pay revisions, by ROP of 1987 in form of 4th Pay Commission the pay scale of Receptionist cum Telephone/Telex Operator came to be revised by Rs. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040. The said was implemented in the GEDA (i.e. Respondent No. 2) by order dated 27/08/1988 the copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-1. 7. I respectfully say and submit that the Government by resolution dated 03.03.1997 and 10.02.1999 declared the post of Telephone Operator to be merged with Junior Clerk post. The copy of the Government Resolution dated is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-2, R-3 colly. 8. I say and submit that the object behind merging the posts was to accommodate the grievances of various stragglers and employees complain about their susceptible pay scale, against which they also made the representation to the Government that there is a anomaly in their pay scale, considering the representation and to remove the pay anomaly the Government frame a high power committee under Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Finance Minister and it was resolved that the said post of Telephone Operator will be merged with the Junior Clerk post. The object was to individual benefit, as the post of Telephone Operator was isolated, not much beneficial; therefore, an executive policy decision was taken to elevate the isolate post of telephone operator. 9. I respectfully say and submit that in the span of time, the State of Gujarat implemented the 5th Pay Commission benefit by ROP 1996, in which the pay revision of Receptionist cum Telephone Operator were given the corresponding revised of Rupees 950-1500 of junior clerk. 10. 9. I respectfully say and submit that in the span of time, the State of Gujarat implemented the 5th Pay Commission benefit by ROP 1996, in which the pay revision of Receptionist cum Telephone Operator were given the corresponding revised of Rupees 950-1500 of junior clerk. 10. I respectfully say and submit that as it very pellucid that by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 10.02.1999 the post of Telephone Operator cum Receptionist came to be merged as Junior Clerk, therefore, the pay scale of Junior Clerk was extended to the Telephone Operator at the time of implementation of ROP of 1996. 11. I say that by way of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.10.2001 turning down the representation of the petitioner for their entitlement in the pay scale of Rupees 4000-6000 and the pay scale of 1200-2040. The answering respondent respectfully submits that the petitioner is only entitle for the revised pay scale of Rupees 3050-4590 i.e. a corresponding pay scale of Junior Clerk as the said post of Telephone Operator cum Receptionist. The revision or merger of any particular post is the decision of the government based on policy decision. Therefore, the Government Resolution dated 03.03.1997 and 10.02.1999 taken a policy decision to merge. Therefore, the prayers said by the petitioner are not entitle to be given to the petitioner. 12. I say that as it was the policy decision of the State Government of merging the post of Receptionist cum Telephone Operator with Junior Clerk post. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit as prayed by the petitioner. 13. I respectfully say and submit that as per the implementation of the GEDA is concerned the Government by communication dated 27.02.2001 had provided the guidelines and implementation of the revision of pay in different post. In the Appendix A corresponding pay scale is provided. According to the Appendix A for the post of Telecom Operator cum Receptionist in the Serial No. 20 in Tabular-4 after the 4th pay commission the pay scale was 950-1500. Corresponding 5th pay commission 3050-4590. Copy of the Govt. correspondences dated 27/02/2001 is annexed as Annexure R-4. 14. In the Appendix A corresponding pay scale is provided. According to the Appendix A for the post of Telecom Operator cum Receptionist in the Serial No. 20 in Tabular-4 after the 4th pay commission the pay scale was 950-1500. Corresponding 5th pay commission 3050-4590. Copy of the Govt. correspondences dated 27/02/2001 is annexed as Annexure R-4. 14. I respectfully say and submit by retiring that the purpose behind passing the Government resolution dated 03.03.1997 as well as 10.02.1999 was to provide better promotional opportunity to the employees who are working in the Telecom Operator cum Receptionist. As it was an isolated post therefore, in order to remove the anomaly and to provide the better promotional avenues the decision is taken and are just in proper. 15. I say that contention of the petitioner regarding downgrading is achromous and feeble. Answering respondent most obsequiously submit that it policy decision of government based on two GR's. Thus, the decision can't be called gloomingly dogged in from of downgrading, aliter, the promotional avenue to the post of telephone operator was very tough, and stuck. Therefore, in public interest a policy decision was taken, to allude to better opportunities by merging with clerk post. Therefore, the petitioner case is consider to be granted benefit of pay scale in correspondence to clerk. 16. I say and submit that it's important to bear in mind that settled principal of law time and again pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executives. Therefore, over the complex decision high power committee has taken decision. Thus, Hon'ble Court is prayed not to interfere with the decision considering the above facts. 17. In light of the above discussion the petition deserves to be dismissed on following points: (A) It is the policy decision of State Government (B) The post of Receptionist cum Telephone Operator came to be merged with the Junior Clerk with the Government Resolution dated 03.03.1997 and 10.02.1999; (C) It is not the case of down grading but the policy decision of State Government merging two posts in Junior Clerk and providing the content." 9. Thus, the stance of the State Government is that being a policy decision, this Court should not disturb the same. The post of Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator came to be merged with the Junior Clerk. Thus, the stance of the State Government is that being a policy decision, this Court should not disturb the same. The post of Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator came to be merged with the Junior Clerk. The case in hand is not one of downgrading, but a policy decision to merge the two posts. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the writ applicant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ application. 11. Under Article 309 of the Constitution Legislature is empowered to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. The proviso to Article 309, however, empowers the President, in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, to make Rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature. The power to regulate recruitment and conditions of service is wide and would include the power to constitute a new cadre by merging certain existing cadres. 12. However, when different cadres are merged certain principles have to be borne in mind. These principles were enunciated in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni [ (1982) 1 SCR 665 at page 678 : ( AIR 1981 SC 1990 at pp. 1994-95)]. While considering the question of integration of government servants allotted to the services of the new States when the different States of India were reorganised. The Supreme Court cited with approval the principles which had been formulated for effecting integration of services of different States. 1994-95)]. While considering the question of integration of government servants allotted to the services of the new States when the different States of India were reorganised. The Supreme Court cited with approval the principles which had been formulated for effecting integration of services of different States. These principles are : In the matter of equation of posts, (1) where there were regularly constituted similar cadres in the different integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on that basis but (2) where there were no such similar cadres, the following factors will be taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts:- "(a) Nature and duties of a post; (b) Powers exercised by the officers holding a post the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (c) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post and; (d) The salary of the post." The Supreme Court further observed that it is not open to the Court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong. This was a matter exclusively within the province of the Central Government. Perhaps the only question the Court can enquire into is whether the four principles cited above had been properly taken into account. This is the narrow and limited field within which the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court can operate. 13. This decision has been relied upon in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.L. Dutta (1991) 1 SCC 505 : ( AIR 1991 SC 363 ). 14. In light of the principles laid down in State of Maharashtra (supra), I have to examine whether the cadres which have been merged by the resolution of the year 1999 were comparable carrying the similar qualifications and comparable duties and salary. I may not touch the issue so far as the qualifications and comparable duties is concerned. However, indisputably, the cadres which have been merged did not carry the same pay scale. With the merger of the two posts, indisputably, the salary of the writ applicant was reduced. To this extent, it could be said that the same has caused prejudice to the writ applicant. A decision to merge such cadres is essentially a matter of policy. However, indisputably, the cadres which have been merged did not carry the same pay scale. With the merger of the two posts, indisputably, the salary of the writ applicant was reduced. To this extent, it could be said that the same has caused prejudice to the writ applicant. A decision to merge such cadres is essentially a matter of policy. To this extent, I am in agreement with the submission of the learned A.G.P. If the cadres carried the same pay scale, the merging of the three cadres would otherwise not cause any prejudice to the post of any of the cadres. It is possible that by reason of such a merger, the chance of promotion of some of the employees may be adversely affected, or some others may benefit in consequence. It is settled law this cannot be a ground for setting aside the merger which is essentially a policy decision. The writ applicant has not raised even the issue of promotion. As she knows very well that a mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service and the fact that there may be a reduction in the chance of promotion would not amount to a change in the conditions of service. 15. I may refer to and rely upon a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi and others v. Yousuf Jamal and others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5636 of 2011 decided on 15th February 2013]. In the said decision, the following observations, in my view, are important: "14....placement in a pay-scale and pay protection are two totally different concepts. Pay protection would mean that when a person is placed in a different pay-scale, he cannot be prejudiced by his pay being fixed lower than what he was receiving; entitling the person concerned to be placed at an appropriate stage of the pay-scale where his last drawn pay is protected." 16. I may also refer to and rely upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of T.S. Ragavan v. Secretary to Government, Highway Department, Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer [Writ Petition No. 1414 of 2008 decided on 4th March 2011]. I may also refer to and rely upon a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of T.S. Ragavan v. Secretary to Government, Highway Department, Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer [Writ Petition No. 1414 of 2008 decided on 4th March 2011]. I may quote the observations made by the Court as contained in para 44: "It is to be pointed out that a change of appointment may occur on account of diverse factors like promotion appointment to a different cadre or post, permanent transfer, deputation, merger of units re-deployment of process etc. Whatever may be the reason for change of appointment the last pay drawn by the employee is to be protected always. As a matter of fact, the protection of last pay is so important a condition of service that were necessary protection has to be given by grant of personal pay which could be adjusted with a few increments. Also, there can be no distinction between the pay drawn in the higher post in Ad-hoc manner or in a regular fashion as opined by this Court." 17. However, the question is one of pay protection. There is no explanation at the end of the State Government in this regard, and more particularly, to the Annexure : "G" (page - 32) referred to above. Both the replies are conspicuously silent on this aspect. Unfortunately, no reasons have been stated even in the letter dated 2nd October 2001 at Annexure: "F" (page - 28) to this application. 18. I am of the view having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case and keeping in view the well-established principles of "pay protection" as applicable in the government service, it would have been fair and proper to have given the benefit of the "pay protection" to the writ applicant. 19. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I deem fit to ask the State to reconsider the issue and take an appropriate decision in this regard keeping in mind the observations and the case-laws discussed. The State Government shall give personal hearing to the writ applicant in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order and pass an appropriate order containing reasons within a period of four weeks from the date of conclusion of the hearing and communicate the same to the writ applicant. 20. The State Government shall give personal hearing to the writ applicant in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order and pass an appropriate order containing reasons within a period of four weeks from the date of conclusion of the hearing and communicate the same to the writ applicant. 20. With the above, this writ application is disposed of.