JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed that the orders dated 19.08.1996, 23.09.1996, 01.10.1996, 08.10.1996 and 20.08.1998 be declared as unconstitutional, illegal and against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also prayed that Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 be declared as illegal, ultra-vires and unconstitutional. Petitioner has also prayed that the Government Resolution dated 11.12.1995 issued by the Finance Department be quashed and set aside and it is also prayed that respondents have no right, power or jurisdiction to order recovery of first higher pay scale, given to the petitioner and re-fix the pay of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Raval for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Gautam for the respondents. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that on 19.07.1962, petitioner joined the Sales Tax Department as Junior Clerk. She was promoted to the post of Sales Tax Inspector on 16.06.1969. In 1971, post of Senior Clerk was introduced. Before 1971, junior clerk was directly promoted to post of Sales Tax Inspector. Government passed a resolution on 12.12.1978, wherein, it has been resolved that as a special case, the pay of the senior persons promoted directly to the post of Sales Tax Inspector from the cadre of clerks should be stepped up from the pay of their juniors who has been promoted first as senior clerks and then given selection grade. The aforesaid resolution was actually implemented on 31.03.1979. Petitioner was therefore put in a scale on Rs. 250-420/- with effect from 01.11.1975. 4. It is thereafter contended that vide Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991, Government introduced scheme of higher grade scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Higher pay scale was sanctioned to the petitioner on 20.10.1993. Such higher pay scale of 9 years of service was granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1987. Thereafter, the impugned Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 was issued by the Government, whereby, the resolution dated 05.07.1991 was revised. It is contended that in the Government Resolution of 16.08.1994, it has been stated that the employee who had been given more than two promotions is not eligible for the higher grade scale. At this stage, it is contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that petitioner was given only one promotion i.e. post of Sales Tax Inspector from junior clerk. At this stage, it is contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that petitioner was given only one promotion i.e. post of Sales Tax Inspector from junior clerk. In 1979, her pay was revised and pay anomaly was rectified by the respondent and therefore, such revision of pay for rectification of pay anomaly cannot be treated as promotion. 5. Learned advocate thereafter submitted that the benefit of higher pay scale was withdrawn on 12.12.1995. The reason stated for the said decision was that promotion to the post of Sales Tax Inspector from the post of junior clerk will be deemed to be promotion as level jumping and accordingly earlier orders were canceled. Petitioner therefore made various representations pointing out that the stepping up is not to be considered as promotion. Petitioner has never received any selection grade. In fact, stepping up of a pay is nothing but a revision of pay with effect from to rectify the anomalies in the pay grades of the senior and junior employees. The respondent without properly considering the representation of the petitioner, recovered the sum of Rs. 18,431/- by order dated 31.07.1998. thereafter, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.01.2000. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Raval appearing for the petitioner once again submitted that prior to 1971, the junior clerks were directly promoted to Sales Tax Inspector. However, in 1971, due to interpolation post of senior clerk was introduced. The junior clerks were promoted to the post of senior clerks first and then they would be promoted to the sales tax officer. Therefore, it created a situation whether senior in the same post gets lessor pay than their juniors. Hence, the anomaly was rectified by Government Resolution dated 12.12.1978. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gurucharansingh Grewal and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, reported in 2009 (3) SCC 94. After relying upon the said decision, it was contended that a senior cannot be paid lessor salary than his junior. If there is any anomaly, then it should be rectified. It is further contended that stepping up of a pay is not a promotion and stepping up is for rectification of anomalies in the pay scale. 7. After relying upon the said decision, it was contended that a senior cannot be paid lessor salary than his junior. If there is any anomaly, then it should be rectified. It is further contended that stepping up of a pay is not a promotion and stepping up is for rectification of anomalies in the pay scale. 7. Learned advocate thereafter submitted the case of the respondent is that departmental promotion committee decided that though sales tax inspector who had been sanctioned stepping up of a pay as per resolution dated 12.12.1978, had been given two promotions for the purpose of counting of chance of promotion viz. Promotion to the post of senior clerk and selection grade that of adding to those promotions to the cadre of sales tax inspector makes three promotions. It is pointed out that as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the employees who had been granted more than two promotions are not eligible for the scheme. However, in the present case, petitioner has not been granted even two promotions. Therefore, the decision of departmental promotion committee is not based on any resolution or circular. In fact, the petitioner received only one promotion for the post of sales tax inspector in 1969. No selection grade has been received by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the higher grade scale from 01.06.1987 as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and recovery made by the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the said order be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned AGP submitted that as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the Government has framed the scheme for higher grade scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. As per the said resolution, no higher grade scale will be sanctioned to an employee if he has already got more than two promotions. The selection grade is to be considered as promotion for the purpose of counting the chance of the promotion as per the said Government Resolution. It is submitted that the petitioner has been granted stepping up of pay against one G.M. Momin as per the guidelines issued by Government Resolution dated 12.12.1978. The selection grade is to be considered as promotion for the purpose of counting the chance of the promotion as per the said Government Resolution. It is submitted that the petitioner has been granted stepping up of pay against one G.M. Momin as per the guidelines issued by Government Resolution dated 12.12.1978. As per the condition laid down in the said resolution, stepping up of a pay was only to be sanctioned to only those senior employees working in the cadre of junior clerk who got promotion to the cadre of sales tax inspector prior to the introduction of the cadre of senior clerk and their pay was less than their juniors when the juniors were promoted to the post of sales tax inspector after being promoted to the post of senior clerk. It was also laid down that senior employee, but for his earlier promotion would have been promoted as senior clerk and to the selection grade of senior clerks when the junior person is promoted. Thus, it is contended by learned AGP that departmental promotion committee while sanctioning the higher grade scale decided that though sales tax inspector who had been sanctioned stepping up of pay as per the guidelines as per the Government Resolution dated 12.12.1978 had been given two promotions for the purpose of counting of chances of promotion i.e. promotion to the post of senior clerk and selection grade adding to those two promotions one promotion to the cadre of sales tax inspector, makes three promotions. As per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, if an employee has received more than two promotions, higher grade scale cannot be sanctioned to him. It is also provided that sanction of selection grade is also required to be considered as chance of promotion. 9. It is further contended by learned AGP that as per the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, option is required to be exercised by employee for continuing to enjoy the benefits of selection grade sanctioned earlier or allow forfeiting the same is ab initio and opting for higher scale. The petitioner has in fact opted for higher scale by signing the prescribed form. Thus, higher grade scale was sanctioned to her with the condition of forfeiting of stepping up of pay. The said criteria was applied in the case of all the sales tax inspectors of similar category. The petitioner has in fact opted for higher scale by signing the prescribed form. Thus, higher grade scale was sanctioned to her with the condition of forfeiting of stepping up of pay. The said criteria was applied in the case of all the sales tax inspectors of similar category. Petitions were filed by the concerned employees against withdrawal of stepping up. This Court directed to hear said petitioners and decide their cases afresh as per the Rules. Thus, the respondent authorities further issued notice to the concerned employees and after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees passed fresh orders. It is submitted that as per Government Resolution dated 12.12.1978, DPC has decided to consider stepping up as two chances of promotion given to those sales tax inspectors, who had been allowed stepping up of pay as per the said resolution. The petitioner had also been promoted to the post of Sales Tax Inspector making three chances of promotion after which higher grade scales cannot be sanctioned as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. It is contended that when the petitioner has signed the prescribed forms as per the annexures of the resolution dated 16.08.1994 and given the consent for forfeiture of selection grade, at this stage, it is not proper for the petitioner to pray for the reliefs prayed for in the petition. Petitioner has agreed for recovery of the amount as per the prescribed form annexed to the Government Resolution of 16.08.1994 and therefore, this petition be dismissed. 10. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it emerges that petitioner joined the Sales Tax Department as junior clerk on 19.07.1962. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of sales tax inspector on 16.06.1969. On 12.12.1978, Government Resolution was issued by the Government wherein it has been resolved that the pay of the senior persons promoted directly to the post of sales tax inspector on 16.06.1969. On 12.12.1978, Government Resolution was issued by the Government wherein, it has been resolved that the pay of the senior persons promoted directly to the post of Sales Tax Inspector from the cadre of clerks should be stepped up from the pay of their juniors who has been promoted first as senior clerks and then given selection grade. On 12.12.1978, Government Resolution was issued by the Government wherein, it has been resolved that the pay of the senior persons promoted directly to the post of Sales Tax Inspector from the cadre of clerks should be stepped up from the pay of their juniors who has been promoted first as senior clerks and then given selection grade. Benefit of the aforesaid Government Resolution was given to the petitioner and thereby, she was put in a scale of Rs. 250-420/- with effect from 01.11.1971. Government introduced scheme of higher grade scale by Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991. The said scheme was substantially modified by Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. If the aforesaid Government Resolution of 16.08.1994 is carefully seen, it is revealed that the employee who had been given more than two promotions is not eligible for higher grade scale. It is not in dispute that petitioner was promoted as Sales Tax Inspector on 16.06.1969 and thereafter selection grade was also granted to her in view of Government Resolution dated 12.12.1978. The Departmental Promotion Committee while sanctioning the higher grade scale, decided to consider stepping up as two chances of promotion given to those Sales Tax Inspectors who had been allotted stepping up of pay as per Government Resolution dated 12.12.1978. The petitioner had been promoted to the post of Sales Tax Inspector as observed herein above making three chances of promotion and therefore, higher grade scale cannot be sanctioned as per Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 to her. However, the petitioner has in fact opted for higher scale by signing the prescribed form. Higher grade scale was granted to her with condition of forfeiture of stepping up of pay. The said criteria was applied in the case of the Sales Tax Inspectors of the similar category. Thus, once the consent form is signed by the petitioner for forfeiture of stepping up of pay and if the amount is recovered on the basis of the same from the petitioner, it cannot be said that respondent authority has committed any illegality. As per the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, both the benefits cannot be given to an employee. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, no illegality is committed by the respondent authority and Departmental Promotion Committee has taken the correct decision. The scope of judicial review is very limited in such type of decision taken by the authority. As per the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, both the benefits cannot be given to an employee. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, no illegality is committed by the respondent authority and Departmental Promotion Committee has taken the correct decision. The scope of judicial review is very limited in such type of decision taken by the authority. Thus, no case is made out for interference in the said decision. Accordingly, petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.