JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. C.S. Mohanan for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Amita Shah for the respondent No.1 – State. 2. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. The petitioner herein was serving as Personal Assistant (Stenographer – Gr.II) in Road & Buildings Department of respondent No.1 – State Government at Vadodara and seeks indulgence of this Court under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India with reference to anomaly arising in the matter of granting of higher grade scale by the respondent to its employees on completion of their services without any promotion, initially for more than 9, 18 and 27 years as per the Government Resolution (G.R.) of the year 1994 and more particularly, because of revised G.R. No.Pay/102007/615/M dated 2.7.2007, whereby, now, respondent has decided to grant higher grade scale on completion of 12 and 24 years of service instead of previous decision of extending higher pay grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. 3. 3. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- A. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, holding and declaring that clause 3(10) of G.R. Dated 2-7-2007 at Annexure-D is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, ultra vires and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in so far as the said clause prohibits reopening of cases decided prior to the date of issuance of the said G.R.; B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents herein to revise the order Annexure-C dated 26-8-2005 and to grant the Second Higher Grade Scale to the petitioner with effect from 1-6-2002 in terms of G.R. Annexure-D dated 2-7-2007, and to grant him the consequential benefits including arrears of pay and to revise his pension accordingly; C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Second Higher Grade Scale with effect from 1-6-2002 in terms of G.R. Annexure-D dated 2-7-2007, by revising the earlier Annexure-C dated 26-8-2005; D. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper in the matter; E. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition with costs.” 4. The basic fact, which is admitted by the respondent and confirmed in paragraph 9 of their reply is to the effect that the petitioner – R.C. Nair was recruited as Stenographer Grade-II on regular basis on 20.4.1977, whereas, one Mr. P.D. Patel was appointed on the same cadre on 27.10.1980. It is also undisputed and admitted fact that petitioner got his first higher grade pay scale with reference to G.R. Dated 16.8.1994 w.e.f. 1.6.1987. He was also awarded second higher grade pay scale w.e.f. 1.6.2005, whereas his junior Mr. P.D. Patel was awarded second higher grade pay scale w.e.f. 27.10.2004. 5. It is also undisputed and admitted fact that petitioner got his first higher grade pay scale with reference to G.R. Dated 16.8.1994 w.e.f. 1.6.1987. He was also awarded second higher grade pay scale w.e.f. 1.6.2005, whereas his junior Mr. P.D. Patel was awarded second higher grade pay scale w.e.f. 27.10.2004. 5. Therefore, irrespective of all other provisions of G.R. and other factual details, one fact is very much clear on record that when higher grade pay scale is to be awarded for not getting the promotion for particular length of service, then, in that case, irrespective of promotion, when higher pay grade scale is awarded to any employee, it is virtually as good as promotion or benefit of serving for particular period in the department. If such benefit is to be extended solely based upon the length of service, then in any case, for similarly situated employees, there cannot be any kind of discrimination, which has occurred in the present case, inasmuch as though petitioner is senior to Mr. P.D. Patel, he has got higher grade pay scale only in 2005, whereas Mr. P.D. Patel, who is junior to him, was awarded same benefit prior to him i.e. on 27.10.2004. Therefore, irrespective of specific basic salary on particular date, the fact remains that the benefit of length of service is considered more beneficiary in the case of Mr. Patel, who is junior to the petitioner and he was given better pay scale prior to the petitioner. Irrespective of all other factual details, which may be taken care of herein after, this is basic discrimination and therefore, in fact while drafting or issuing any resolution, the Government should have taken care of all such situations to avoid any anomaly or discrimination amongst the service conditions of its employees. Unfortunately, while issuing second G.R., on 2.7.2007, respondents have decided that in cases where higher grade pay scale has been awarded, then, such completed cases are not to be reopened after the date of releasing of such G.R. Therefore, when petitioner has got second higher grade pay scale, irrespective of his repeated representations, the factual details of all the clerical and administrative files are not much material except to confirm that only because of such condition No.10 in G.R. Dated 2.7.2007, the respondents have refused to consider the representation by the petitioner. 6. 6. It is also undisputed fact that pursuant to first G.R. Dated 16.8.1994, which is mainly discussing the claim of higher grade pay scale to deal with the problem of installments of D.A., interim relief and absence or restricted chances of promotion to the Government employees. While confirming the benefits of higher grade pay scale, after completion of 9 and 18 years, it has been stated in paragraph 3 regarding revised higher grade pay scale scheme as under:- “3. At present the Higher Grade pay Scheme is in force under Government Resolution, Department No. AOP-1091-3-M, dated 5th July, 1991 and amendments made from time to time as well as the resolutions/circulars issued thereafter as referred to at Sr. Nos. 1 to 22 in the preamble. In view of the facts stated in the preamble above, it will be found that the present scheme is brought into effect with the intent to see that the pay of the Government employees is not stagnated at the maximum stage in their grade if there is no chance or limited chances of promotion during their service. It is found from the experience that though there are chances of promotion or the regular promotion is secured at interval of time under present orders and employee is not stagnated at maximum stage in his pay scale, he becomes eligible to have the benefit of First, Second and Third Higher Grade Scale on completion of 9-18-27 years of service. Actually this was not the intention of the Government. With reference to this background and after full consideration in the matter, Government, instead of the provisions of resolutions mentioned as read, after revising this scheme ab-initio, is hereby pleased to direct that the employees who have completed 9 years of service in the respective cadre and the grade on 1st June, 1987 or whenever they complete 9 years of service in the grade of the respective cadre after this date shall be eligible for First Higher Grade Scale. Even though they have completed more than 9 years of service that means 18-27 years of service in the same cadre on 1- 6-87, they shall be eligible only for First higher Grade Scale. Even though they have completed more than 9 years of service that means 18-27 years of service in the same cadre on 1- 6-87, they shall be eligible only for First higher Grade Scale. Whereas the Second and Third Higher Grade Scale shall be admissible to the employee at 18 and 27 years in the grade of respective cadre after 1st June, 1987 or if the employee has completed one year after reaching the maximum stage in the respective higher/promotional grade and has stagnated, whichever is later, provided he should not have got more than two promotions/higher grade prior to that. After getting the higher grade if the employee is promoted on the promotional posts it will be considered that he has got only one Higher Grade/Promotion. With reference to existing orders, the orders sanctioning the second and third higher grade scale to the respective employees shall be considered null and void. Thereupon, due to availing of second and third higher grade scale according to the previous orders the amount of difference which lax is credited to G.P.F. Account of the respective employees is required to be transferred to the Government accounts. Orders in this respect are being issued separately.” 6.1 Though the revised scheme shall be subject to several conditions/provisions, which are enumerated thereafter, at present we are concerned only with one of the condition i.e. 3/13, which reads as under:- “3/13 If the pay of a junior employee is fixed more than that of a senior employee due to higher grade scale scheme, general provisions of stepping up shall apply and cases shall be regularised after scrutinizing accordingly.” 7. The bare reading of the above provisions makes it clear that when Government has issued such resolution, their intention is very clear that everybody should get first higher grade pay scale on completion of 9 years, but so far as second higher grade pay scale is concerned, it could be released only if the employee has completed one year after reaching the maximum stage in the respective higher/promotional grade and has stagnated because of the condition with such eligibility, which reads thus “whichever is later”. Thereby, it is quite clear that the G.R. Dated 16.8.1994 is though talking about extending higher grade pay scale after 9 and 18 years, the employees like the petitioner would only get the second higher grade pay scale unless they reach to the maximum stage in their respective grade and becomes stagnant. In view of such position, the proviso thereafter is not only contradictory, but it amounts to offer a deceptive temptation to the employees that they would get second and third higher grade pay scale, which shall be admissible on completion of 18 and 27 years, when it states that employee should not have got two promotions/higher grade prior to such second higher grade pay scale. 8. For such reasons, there were representations before the respondents by the different Employees’ Associations and therefore, now, respondent has come forward with second G.R. Dated 2.7.2007 where the preamble makes it clear that second G.R. is only because of several representations by different Employees’ Association, but, now, instead of awarding higher grade pay scale after completion of 9, 18 and 27 years, the respondents have decided to extend it only after completing 12 and 24 years of service. In such second G.R. dated 2.7.2007, it is also stated that whoever has completed nine years service then, they are entitled to benefit of G.R. dated 16.8.1994, but whoever is already awarded first higher grade pay scale, as per such G.R. Dated 16.8.1994, then, thereafter, second higher grade pay scale is to be awarded only on completion of next 15 years, thereby, total 24 years as per second G.R. Dated 2.7.2007. 9. Therefore, considering the cumulative effect of both the G.R.s, in any case, petitioner is entitled to second higher grade pay scale w.e.f. the year 2002 when he has completed 24 years in the year 2002. However, only because of condition No.10 in G.R. dated 2.7.2007, the respondents have considered that since petitioner has been awarded the second higher grade pay scale as per G.R. dated 16.8.1994 w.e.f. 1.6.2005, now, he is not entitled to any benefit of second G.R. dated 2.7.2007. However, only because of condition No.10 in G.R. dated 2.7.2007, the respondents have considered that since petitioner has been awarded the second higher grade pay scale as per G.R. dated 16.8.1994 w.e.f. 1.6.2005, now, he is not entitled to any benefit of second G.R. dated 2.7.2007. Such condition is self contradictory with other conditions in the second G.R. and otherwise also, it is arbitrary and against the settled principle of service jurisprudence that whenever any benefit is to be extended to anybody, if anyone is entitled to particular benefit because of particular G.R., G.R. could not discriminate amongst the people only by saying that once relying upon the previous G.R., decision is taken, the benefit of new G.R. cannot extended to all such persons. In the present case, otherwise also, even extending such benefit is well stated in the said G.R. The entire G.R. is for the benefit of the employees. The interpretation of Clause 10 is wrongly made by the respondents inasmuch as if it is to be continued and considered as proper condition in G.R. what it provides is not to reopen the cases in the case of employee, who has got full benefit of previous G.R. i.e. 2nd and 3rd higher grade pay scale and thereafter, who are not entitled to any further benefit. 10. The respondents have failed to realize that in fail when effect of the G.R. is to be effected with retrospective effect, practically, it is to be considered that in fact, G.R. is issued on such backdate only. Thereby, if G.R. is issued on backdate, then, its effect would have been released, but only because the administrative authorities could not decide certain issues in time and could not issue necessary G.R./order/resolution in time, the cannot say that now they will not revise the orders which are effected by such new G.R., based upon their unilateral decision, more particularly when it results into anomaly and discrimination. 11. As against all such specific and clear position on record, the respondents have come forward with a case that because of condition 3(10) of the G.R. dated 2.7.2007, when they have not extended the higher grade pay scale w.e.f. 1.6.2002 to the petitioner, there is no reason or substance to direct them as prayed for by the petitioner. 11. As against all such specific and clear position on record, the respondents have come forward with a case that because of condition 3(10) of the G.R. dated 2.7.2007, when they have not extended the higher grade pay scale w.e.f. 1.6.2002 to the petitioner, there is no reason or substance to direct them as prayed for by the petitioner. It is further contended in their affidavit in reply with annexed documents that even after revised pay scale, when petitioner is getting higher salary than Mr. Patel, there is no reason to revise the pay grade of the petitioner. However, to that effect, it is quite clear and obvious that though total salary of the petitioner may be higher than Mr. Patel, the fact remains that the date on which Mr. Patel was awarded higher grade i.e. 27.10.2004, on that date, the grade of the petitioner was lower than Mr. Patel though Mr. Patel is junior to the petitioner and therefore, to that extent, the pay grade of the petitioner was otherwise also required to be revised so as to make it atleast equal to the pay grade of his junior i.e. Mr. P.D. Patel. However, as discussed herein above, considering the overall provisions of both the G.R.s, when petitioner is entitled to second higher grade pay scale from the year 2002, if it is awarded, then the anomaly would automatically be resolved whereby the petitioner may get the proper grade from the year 2002, which his junior Mr. Patel will receive from the year 2004. 12. The respondents are also relying upon socalled undertaking taken by them in writing from the petitioner, copy of which is produced on page 109-111, which is disclosing that such undertaking is taken pursuant to paragraphs 3(20) and 3(20)(2). However, there is no clarity that these paragraphs are from which document, it is clear that when this undertaking is taken in the year 2005 i.e. before the second G.R. dated 2.7.2007 and when there is a reference of G.R. dated 16.8.1994 in such undertaking, such paragraphs are certainly referring such G.R. dated 16.8.1994. The perusal of such paragraphs in such G.R. dated 16.8.2016 makes it clear that neither in paragraphs 3(20) and 3(20)(2), there is any reference regarding senior or junior employees and award of higher grade to them. The perusal of such paragraphs in such G.R. dated 16.8.2016 makes it clear that neither in paragraphs 3(20) and 3(20)(2), there is any reference regarding senior or junior employees and award of higher grade to them. On the contrary, reference in both the paragraphs with regard to promotions confirms that whoever is benefitted with such higher grade pay scale, then, as and when he is eligible for promotion, he will not refuse it and with reference to the employee, who has relinquished the promotion before 5.7.1991. Therefore, these undertakings are to be taken with reference to the issue regarding promotion or employee who has relinquished the promotion before 5.7.1991 and not with reference to an anomaly of pay scale with their juniors. To that extent, the drafting of such undertakings are improper and even if it is signed by the petitioner, it does not take away his legal and constitutional right to claim equality in service condition and supremacy from his junior in any manner whatsoever. 13. At this stage it would be relevant to refer the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 2909 wherein with reference to the service conditions Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has held that – “Apart from the fact that the Government in its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to raise such an argument, the undertaking which is said to constitute an agreement between the parties cannot be enforced at law”. 14. The petitioner is relying upon following judgments, some of which discloses the basic principle of service jurisprudence that if juniors are getting higher grade pay or salary, then, such anomaly is to be resolved by granting higher or equal pay grade/pay scale to the seniors. However, considering the factual discussion herein above, detailed discussion of such judgment are not much material. List of such judgments is as under:- a. D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 ; b. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Gurmail Singh, (2008)7 SCC 245 ; c. Union of India & Anr. Vs. R. Swaminathan, AIR 1997 SC 3554 ; d. Madhavan Assari Vs. K.S.S.I.D & E Corporation Ltd., (1992)2 LLJ 341; e. K.K. Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2015)9 SCC 652 . 15. Vs. Gurmail Singh, (2008)7 SCC 245 ; c. Union of India & Anr. Vs. R. Swaminathan, AIR 1997 SC 3554 ; d. Madhavan Assari Vs. K.S.S.I.D & E Corporation Ltd., (1992)2 LLJ 341; e. K.K. Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2015)9 SCC 652 . 15. In view of above facts and circumstances, the petition needs to be allowed. Thereby, respondents are directed to revise the order dated 26.8.2005 granting second higher grade pay to the petitioner so as to give its effect from 1.6.2002 in terms of G.R. dated 2.7.2007 and to grant him consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and to revise his pension accordingly, since at present the petitioner is retired. 16. Respondent has to complete such exercise within four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 17. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.