JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. By way of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to grant/sanction the pay-scale of the petitioner and also direct the respondents to grant pension as well as increments, provident fund, insurance, leave encashment, gratuity and other retirement benefits with running interest @ 18% per annum till the date of payment of pension and pensionary benefits. He has further prayed for direction declaring that Circular dated 27-10-1972 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Mr. G.M. Amin, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has specifically contended that the entire controversy is based on the dispute whether the petitioner can be termed as "protected teacher" or not. It is the case of the petitioner that his pensionary benefits are not fixed considering him as "protected teacher" and an objection was raised while fixing his pension after his retirement qua his status as "protected teacher". Mr. Amin has vehemently submitted that the petitioner right from the beginning was considered as "protected teacher". He has drawn attention of this Court on various communications, wherein the petitioner has been declared as "protected teacher". He has drawn attention to letter dated 23-8-1971 written by the Education Officer, Ahmedabad, stating that the petitioner is a "protected teacher". He has also drawn attention to letter dated 23-4-1986 written by the District Education Officer to the Principal, where the petitioner was serving, stating that the petitioner is to be considered as "protected teacher. A detailed analysis of the service of the petitioner is reflected in letter dated 23-4-1986. It is specifically stated that the petitioner was imparting education to Std. 5, 6, 7 and from 8 to 11. Reliance is also placed in resolution dated 4-6-1975 wherein Std. 1 to 7 were bifurcated and stated as Primary Division, whereas Std. 8 to 11 were nominated as Secondary Division. It is also stated in the said letter that the petitioner was taking classes of Secondary Division in Shree R.R. Patel Rajasthan Hindi High School and from 17-8-1969, he is continuously engaged and imparting the education to the Secondary Division. It is also stated by the District Education Officer that right from beginning, his pay was fixed as "protected teacher", hence, he should be considered as "protected teacher". It is also stated by the District Education Officer that right from beginning, his pay was fixed as "protected teacher", hence, he should be considered as "protected teacher". Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision dated 12-10-1984 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 842 of 1979 in support of his case. 2. Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities, has relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the District Education Officer in response to the petition. He has specifically placed reliance on Paragraph No. 10, wherein it is stated that as per Resolution dated 27-10-1972, if the "protected teacher" resigns, and thereafter, again joins the same school or any other private school, then their pay-scale does not get protection. He has stated that the petitioner having tendered his resignation in different schools and changed the schools, he is not entitled for grant of pay protection. At this stage, it is interesting to note the averment made at Page 74 in the Affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is stated that for the purpose of higher pay-scale and for verification of pay Service Book, file was sent to the Principal by respondent No. 3. It is admitted that the petitioner was declared as "protected teacher". It is further stated in the Affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner was allotted Sr. No. 274 in the Register and the said entry pertains to "protected teacher". No other contention is raised on behalf of the respective parties. 3. After perusal of the relevant documents on record and hearing the learned Counsels for the respective parties, the only controversy which requires to be adjudicated by me is that whether Resolution dated 27-10-1972 will apply in the case of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the said resolution states that the teachers, who have rendered resignation, and thereafter, again re-appointed in Std. 5 and 6 in any school shall not be entitled for protection of pay-scale. This Resolution is an amendment to the earlier Resolution dated 14-4-1970. In my view the said resolution will not apply in the case of the petitioner since the letter dated 23-4-1996 written by District Education Officer to the school authority clearly indicates that the petitioner was imparting education to the students of Std. 5, 6, 7 and 8 to 11, and thereafter, continuously he was engaged for imparting education for secondary division i.e. for Std. 5, 6, 7 and 8 to 11, and thereafter, continuously he was engaged for imparting education for secondary division i.e. for Std. 8 to 11. This fact can be borne out from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent in Paragraph No. 10 wherein it is stated that the petitioner had joined Rajasthan Hindi High School on 17-6-1963, he has rendered his service for Std. 5, 7 to 11. After resigning from the said school the petitioner joined Adarsh High School, Dhamij, Tal. Dehgam. On 16-6-1969 the petitioner joined Jyoti Vidhyamandir, Chandrala. Thereafter he tendered his resignation and on 9-9-1969, he joined the Cantonment High School, Ahmedabad, and thereafter, Gyanodaya Hindi Primary School, Ahmedabad on 21-8-1971. Petitioner had retired on 31-10-2000. Accordingly, the School Board has prepared the pension papers of the petitioner as "protected teacher". But an objection to that effect was raised by respondent No. 2. It deserves to be noted that the said objection is raised after a period of 38 years at the retirement of the petitioner. The pay-scale of the petitioner was subject to verification of the same authority i.e. Local Fund time and again. In my view the said objection at the time of retirement is belated and the same is liable to be rejected. 4. At this stage, it deserves to be noted that vide order dated 15-2-2005, this Court had passed an order for grant of provisional pension to the petitioner. As per the instructions from the client learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that accordingly he is getting the provisional pension. 5. So far as the other benefits like provident fund, insurance, leave encashment, gratuity, etc., are concerned, if the same are not paid, the same are to be released forthwith. Petitioner shall be paid the benefits within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.