JUDGMENT : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. By this writ-applicant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant a retired Lecturer has prayed for the following reliefs:- 9(A) to admit this petition. (B) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction quashing and setting aside the communication dated 1.12.2000 of the respondent no. 1 at annexure-E to the petition. (C) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent no. 1 to give to the petitioner the pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700 (revised to Rs. 12,000-18,000 with effect from 1.1.1996) with effect from the date of appointment with the respondent no. 1-University after taking into consideration 16 years service rendered by the petitioner at Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalay, Rajpipla and to grant to the petitioner all consequential benefits like arrears of pay etc. on that basis. (D) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, to pass an order directing the respondent no. 1 to fix the pay-scale of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-18,000 on the basis that the said scale was given to the petitioner from 4.9.1990 and to fix of current pay of the petitioner on that basis and to pay the petitioner current salary accordingly. (E) to grant any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. It appears from te materials on record that the writ-applicant joined the service as a Lecturer in Physical Education at the Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya, Rajpipla on 15/07/1974 in the pay-scale of Rs. 250-400/-, which at a later stage came to be revised to Rs. 550-900/-. In the year 1985, he was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 650-1040/- and in the year 1986 he was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-; in the year 1987 he was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. 3. On 03/09/1990, the writ-applicant resigned from the service of the Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya, Rajpipla. 4. On 04/09/1990, the writ-applicant joined the respondent no. 1-University as the Assistant Director, Physical Education in the grade of “Teacher” that is in the grade of Rs. 2200-4000/- and the basic pay of the writ-applicant was fixed at Rs. 2200-4000/-. 3. On 03/09/1990, the writ-applicant resigned from the service of the Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya, Rajpipla. 4. On 04/09/1990, the writ-applicant joined the respondent no. 1-University as the Assistant Director, Physical Education in the grade of “Teacher” that is in the grade of Rs. 2200-4000/- and the basic pay of the writ-applicant was fixed at Rs. 3500/- by way of the pay protection. 5. On completion of eight years of service i.e. 04/09/1998 with the respondent no. 1-University, the writ-applicant was given the selection grade of Rs. 10,000-15,200/-. On 30/12/1999, the writ-applicant preferred a representation claiming the selection grade of Rs. 12,000-18,000/-. On 01/08/2000, the University wrote a letter that the pay-scale of Rs. 12,000-18,000/- was being sanctioned and the salary was being fixed at Rs. 12,000/- we.f. 03/09/1998. On 09/08/2000 the writ-applicant addressed a letter to the respondent no. 1-University requesting that the pay-scale of Rs. 12,000-18,000/- be given w.e.f. 04/09/1990. 6. It appears that for the reason assigned in the affidavit-in-reply, the University passed an order dated 01/12/2000 or rather communicated to the Director of the Physical Education Department that the selection grade which was awarded in favour of the writ-applicant should be treated as cancelled. 7. Being dissatisfied, the writ-applicant has come with this writ-application. 8. Mr. Clerk, the learned counsel has twofold submissions to canvass. First, the decision to cancel awarding of the selection grade was taken by the University without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicant and secondly, the University is labouring under a serious misconception of fact that the writ-applicant had not rendered service in the pay-scale of Lecturer. According to Mr. Clerk, his client had served as a Lecturer in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- and from 01/07/1987 in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. 9. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Clerk prays that there being merit in the writ-application, the same be allowed and the relief be granted. 10. On the other hand this writ-application is vehemently opposed by Mr. Shelat, the learned counsel appearing for the University. According to Mr. Shelat, the writ-applicant was not entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 12,000-18,500/- as he had not rendered service in the pay-scale of the Lecturer. According to Mr. 10. On the other hand this writ-application is vehemently opposed by Mr. Shelat, the learned counsel appearing for the University. According to Mr. Shelat, the writ-applicant was not entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 12,000-18,500/- as he had not rendered service in the pay-scale of the Lecturer. According to Mr. Shelat, an employee is entitled to the benefit of Senior Scale provided he has rendered service as a Lecturer or equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of a Lecturer. 11. Mr. Shelat also placed reliance on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1-University. He prays that there being no merit in this writ-application, the same be rejected. 12. 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 relief as prayed for in this writ-application. 13. Let me first look into the order which came to be passed in favor of the writ-applicant sanctioning the selection grade of Rs. 12,000-18,500/-. The same reads as under:- The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. No. ADE/T/FIX/6/682 Dated 1st August, 2000. Name: Shri N.K. Sardhara Designation: Assistant Director. Institution: Physical Education Department. Present Scale: Rs. 10000-325-15200 Shri NKSardhara is hereby informed that he has been fixed on Rs. 12,000/- p.m. w.ef. 3.9.1998 in the Selection grade of Rs. 12000-420-18500 as he is considered to have completed 16 years of services as Assistant Director of on 3.9.1998 as provided in Rule No. 10 read with Rule No. 9 of the Appendix-I of GRED Nos. (i) MIS/1187/55843/KH dated 14.9.1988 and (ii) MIS/1187.GOI/30(90)/20/88.KH dated 11.12.1990 and para 7 of the GOG guidelines attached with the letter dated 28.3.2000 His next date of increment will be 3.9.1999 Sd/- For Registrar. To, Shri N.K Sardhara - through the Director of the Physical Education Department. C.C. to: 1. The Director of Physical Education Department. 14. Exactly, after nine days from the order referred to above, the writ-applicant preferred a representation with a prayer that the benefit of the Selection Grade be granted from 03/09/1990 instead of 03/09/1998. Without responding to the said representation straightway it appears that the decision was taken to cancel the grant of the Selection Grade. The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. Baroda. No. ADE/6/3041Dated 1st December, 2000. The Director, Physical Education Department, M.S. University, Baroda. Without responding to the said representation straightway it appears that the decision was taken to cancel the grant of the Selection Grade. The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. Baroda. No. ADE/6/3041Dated 1st December, 2000. The Director, Physical Education Department, M.S. University, Baroda. Sub.: Award of Selection Grade-Shri N.K. Sardhara, Assistant Director. Ref.: 1. This office order No.ADE/T/Fix/6/682, dated 1.8.2000 2. Your endorsement No. PED/171.dated 9.8.2000 below the application dated 9.8.2000 of Shri N.K. Sardhara. Sir, With reference to the above, I have to inform you that the office order under reference No. 1 in connection with award of Selection Grade to Shri N.K Sardhara, Assistant Director be treated as cancelled as previous service rendered by Shri Sardhara as a Lecturer at the Rajpipla College cannot be considered for awarded of S.G And therefore, he is not eligible for award of S.G At this stage. You are, therefore requested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly. Yours faithfully Sd/- For Registrar. 15. Indisputably, the decision to cancel the selection grade, which was already given to the writ-applicant was withdrawn without giving any opportunity of hearing. A monetary benefit was conferred on the writ-applicant. On conferment of such benefit, a right could be said to have accrued in favour of the writ-applicant. Before withdrawing such right which had already accrued, the University should have given one opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicant. I could have closed this matter at this stage by quashing the order and remitting the matter to the University with a view to give an opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicant. However, the same will be an empty formality for the simple reason that Annexure-I at Page-42 makes the picture abundantly clear. 16. At this stage, let me quote the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the University as under:- 3. I state that no fundamental and/or legal right of the petitioner is infringed by any action of the Answering Respondent. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is, therefore, not maintainable in law. I state that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director, Physical Education on the basis pay of Rs. 3,500/- per month in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. I state that upon completion of 8 years of service the petitioner was granted the benefit of selection grade and the pay was fixed at Rs. I state that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director, Physical Education on the basis pay of Rs. 3,500/- per month in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. I state that upon completion of 8 years of service the petitioner was granted the benefit of selection grade and the pay was fixed at Rs. 4125/- per month in the scale of Rs. 3000-5000/-. I state that the petitioner is claiming for grant of selection grade in the pay-scale of lecturer Rs. 12000-18500/- at Rs. 12000/- per month with effect from 03/09/1990 on the premise that on 28/10/1998 the petitioner had completed 24 years of service. For the said purpose, the petitioner is asserting that the 16 years of service rendered by him at Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalay, Rajpipla should be taken into consideration. The claim of the petitioner is misconceived since the said services rendered by the petitioner were not in the pay-scale of lecturer. An employee is entitled to the benefit of Senior Scale provided the employee has rendered services as lecturer or equivalent grade/scale of pay as the post of lecturer. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to the considered of the said services for the purpose of grant of selection grade. The decision of the University is in accordance with law. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is required to be rejected as such. 4. With reference to Paragraph 3 to 3.7, I state that relevant facts are as under:- (a) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director, Physical Education Department in the University with the basic pay of Rs. 3500/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. A copy of the letter dated 04/02/1999 informing that Petitioner's pay is Rs. 3500/- per month is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R1/1. (b) On 28/10/1998, upon completion of 8 years of service as Assistant Director, the Petitioner pay was fixed on Rs. 4125/- per month with effect from 4/9/1998 in the senior scale of Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000. A copy of the letter dated 28.10.1998 fixing the petitioner's pay at Rs. 4125/- per month is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R1/2. (b) On 28/10/1998, upon completion of 8 years of service as Assistant Director, the Petitioner pay was fixed on Rs. 4125/- per month with effect from 4/9/1998 in the senior scale of Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000. A copy of the letter dated 28.10.1998 fixing the petitioner's pay at Rs. 4125/- per month is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R1/2. (c) I state that petitioner submitted a representation to consider the 16 years of services rendered by him at Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya, prior to joining the University and treat the total period of services rendered on 28/10/1998 as 24 years and considering the same, to grant selection grade in the scale of Rs. 12,000-18300/-. (d) Upon consideration of the representation, vide order dated 01-08-2000, the petitioner was informed that his pay has been fixed on Rs. 12000/- with effect from 03/09/1998 in the selection grade of Rs. 12000-420-18500/-, considering that he had completed 16 years of service as Assistant Director on 3/9/1998. (e) The petitioner made a further representation to modify the above order by granting him the selection grade benefit from 03-09-1990 instead of 03-09-1998. (f) It was noticed that the past services rendered by the petitioner were in scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- and not the scale of lecturer i.e. Rs. 2200-4000/-, upon completion of 9 years of service, he was awarded the higher grade scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The pay scale was that of a non-teaching employee and not of a lecturer. The benefit of higher grade in the scale of lecturer could not be granted on the basis of the previous pay-scale. The petitioner was therefore informed that the order dated 01/08/2000 was treated as cancelled and that he was not eligible for award of Senior Grade at that stage. 17. It appears from the stance of the University that the writ-applicant was not entitled to the Selection Grade of Rs. 12,000-18,500/- because the services rendered by the writ-applicant in the past were in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- and in the scale of Lecturer Rs. 2200-4000/- upon completion of nine years of service. 18. Let me look into the rejoinder filed by the writ-applicant. In the rejoinder, the following has been averred:- 3. It is denied that I have not rendered service as lecturer in Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya as alleged or otherwise. I had joined the said college on 15-07-74 as a lecturer. 2200-4000/- upon completion of nine years of service. 18. Let me look into the rejoinder filed by the writ-applicant. In the rejoinder, the following has been averred:- 3. It is denied that I have not rendered service as lecturer in Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya as alleged or otherwise. I had joined the said college on 15-07-74 as a lecturer. I worked in the said college as lecturer upto 03-09-90. The said college has issued “Appendix-C” dated 24-09-98 certifying all the details of my service with the said college. A true copy of Appendix-C dated 24-09-98 is annexed herewith and marked as “Annexure-I”. This shows that I was working as full time lecturer and was given the senior scale of lecturer, i.e. 2200-4000 on 01-07-87 My pay was fixed in the senior scale at Rs. 3,500/- on 01-07-87 The said pay was protected by the respondent no. 1 university at the time when I joined the respondent no. 1 university on 04-09-90. It is therefore not correct to say that I was not working as a lecturer in Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya, Rajpipla. 4. It is an admitted position that I was appointed as Asst. Director, Physical Education by the respondent no. 1 university on 04-09-90 by protecting my pay at Rs. 3,500/- p.m. in the pay scale of 2200-4000. The letter dated 04-02-99 written by the respondent no. 1 university to In-charge Director, Physical Education, Vadodara who is a State Government Authority shows that my pay was protected by the respondent no. 1 university. 5. It is also an admitted position that I was granted selection grade of lecturer by the communication dated 01-08-2000 by which my pay was fixed at Rs. 12,000/- p.m. w.e.f 03-09-98 in the selection grade of 12000-18500 on completion of 16 years of service as Lecturer/Asst. Director on 03-09-98. 6. This communication is sought to be cancelled by the communication dated 01-12-2000 without giving any opportunity of hearing to me though it has serious prejudicial, civil consequences. I say and submit that I was granted selection grade correctly and the conciliation of the same is illegal. 7. It is submitted that it cannot be disputed that I was working as lecturer with Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya, Rajpipla. 8. I say that the respondent no. 1 university had granted me the senior scale of Rs. I say and submit that I was granted selection grade correctly and the conciliation of the same is illegal. 7. It is submitted that it cannot be disputed that I was working as lecturer with Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya, Rajpipla. 8. I say that the respondent no. 1 university had granted me the senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 w.e.f 04-09-98 by reckoning my service of 8 years as Asst. Director which is not correct. I say that my service is continuous as lecturer from 15-07-74 and therefore I rightly given selection grade on completion of 16 years of service w.e.f 03-09-98 and my pay was rightly fixed at Rs. 12000/- p.m. by the letter dated 01-08-2000. 9. I further say and submit that I had transferred my GPF from Chhotubhai Purani Vyayam Maha Vidyalaya, Rajpipla to respondent no. 1 university which also shows that my service was treated as continuous. 10. It is denied that I was given pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 which is of a non teaching employee is alleged or otherwise. I say that the Appendix-C certified by the college clearly shows that I was given the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 01-07-87 and my pay was fixed at Rs. 3500/-. 11. I say that State Government has issued a GR dated 11-12-87 which provides that if a lecturer changes the college he should be granted pay protection. Accordingly my service was treated as continuous and my pay was protected by the respondent no. 1 university. A true copy of the GR dated 11-12-87 is annexed herewith and marked as “Annexure-II.” 19. Alongwith the rejoinder, there is an Annexure in the form of Appendix ‘C at Page-42. The plain reading of the same would indicate that the petitioner had served as a Lecturer and was in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- w.e.f. 01/01/1986 and thereafter, in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- w.e.f. 01/07/1987. Probably, all this could have been pointed out by the writ-applicant if an opportunity would have been given to him at the relevant point of time by the University. 20. Be that as it may, the facts are clear as stated above. In the result, this writ-application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned communication dated 01/12/2000, Annexure-E to this petition is hereby quashed. The prayer in terms of Para-9(C) is hereby granted. 20. Be that as it may, the facts are clear as stated above. In the result, this writ-application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned communication dated 01/12/2000, Annexure-E to this petition is hereby quashed. The prayer in terms of Para-9(C) is hereby granted. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute.