ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. By way of this appeal, which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant- original respondent has challenged an order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 14767 of 2014, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent-original petitioner. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia for the appellant-original respondent and learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the respondent original petitioner. 3. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Kapadia that the petitioner was working as Extension Officer (Agriculture) in the office of respondent District Panchayat. During the service tenure of the petitioner, departmental inquiry came to be initiated against him for irregularities and negligence on his part for distribution of agricultural equipments on subsidy to the Agriculture Purpose Cooperative Societies. After departmental inquiry was concluded, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of stoppage of five increments with future effect by an order dated 24.07.1992, against which the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Deputy Development Commissioner. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 26.10.1995, against which, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 492 of 1995 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. The said appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 03.10.1997 and the matter was remanded back to the respondent Panchayat for conducting inquiry afresh. It is submitted that after the matter was remanded, inquiry was conducted afresh and by an order dated 16.09.2003, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of withholding of two increments without future effect by placing the petitioner two scales down up to the age of his retirement i.e. up to 31.03.2004 4. Learned advocate Mr. Kapadia submitted that effect of the aforesaid order of punishment was that the petitioner, who was receiving Rs. 9,000/- as basic pay, was placed at Rs. 8,650/- by reducing the salary of the petitioner two stages down. It is contended that when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004, he was getting Basic Pay of Rs. 8,650/-. Accordingly, the pension of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn by the petitioner. The petitioner requested for grant of pension on his Basic salary of Rs. 9,000/- and not on last pay drawn i.e. Rs. 8,650/-. 8,650/-. Accordingly, the pension of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn by the petitioner. The petitioner requested for grant of pension on his Basic salary of Rs. 9,000/- and not on last pay drawn i.e. Rs. 8,650/-. However, the said request was not accepted by the respondent Panchayat and therefore petitioner filed captioned petition before this Court praying that his pension be fixed on the basis of the Basic Pay of Rs. 9,000/- and other retirement benefits be paid on the said basic pay. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, by an impugned order, allowed the petition and therefore present appeal is filed. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Kapadia thereafter submitted that when the petitioner was getting Rs. 8650/- at the time of his retirement, the pension was fixed on the basis of the said last pay drawn by the petitioner and therefore no error is committed by the respondent Panchayat while granting the pensionary and other retirement benefits on the said basis. However, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by issuing directions to the respondent Panchayat to prepare and revise the pension papers of the petitioner by considering Rs. 9,000/- as his last pay and the arrears of pension and other retirement dues be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. It is therefore requested that the impugned order be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Desai appearing for the original petitioner supported the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and submitted that after the fresh inquiry was held by the respondent Panchayat, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 16.09.2003 imposing punishment of withholding of two increments without future effect by placing the petitioner two scales down up to the age of his retirement i.e. up to 31.03.2004 Thus, during the operation of the said order of punishment, the petitioner would not be entitled to get any increment. Thereby it would mean that from 16.09.2003 till the date of reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 31.03.2004 the petitioner would receive the pay which would be two stages down and would not receive any increment. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed in the Basic Pay of Rs. 8,650/- instead of Rs. 9,000/-. Thereby it would mean that from 16.09.2003 till the date of reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 31.03.2004 the petitioner would receive the pay which would be two stages down and would not receive any increment. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed in the Basic Pay of Rs. 8,650/- instead of Rs. 9,000/-. It was specifically stated in the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority that punishment would operate only till the age of superannuation i.e. 31.03.2004 and therefore it is not proper on the part of the respondent Panchayat to consider the last pay drawn by the petitioner i.e. 8,650/- for the purpose of pensionary and other retirement benefits. It is therefore submitted that learned Single Judge has not committed any error while allowing the petition and giving directions to the respondent Panchayat. He, therefore, requested that present appeal be dismissed. 7. Having considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. On conclusion of the said inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of stoppage of five increments with future effect. Against the said order, petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Deputy Development Commissioner. The said appeal came to be dismissed and therefore the petitioner filed an appeal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. The said appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 03.10.1997 and the matter was remanded back to the respondent Panchayat for conducting fresh inquiry. Thereafter, fresh inquiry was conducted and on conclusion of the said inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of withholding of two increments without future effect by placing the petitioner two scales down up to the age of his retirement i.e. up to 31.03.2004 Therefore, the petitioner who was receiving Rs. 9,000/- as basic pay was placed at Rs. 8,650/- by reducing the salary of the petitioner two stage down. At the time of superannuation of the petitioner i.e. on 31.03.2004, he was getting Basic Pay of Rs. 8,650/-. Accordingly, the pension of the petitioner was fixed on the said amount of Rs. 8,650/-. However, the petitioner requested for grant of pension on his actual Basic salary of Rs. 9,000/- and not on last pay drawn i.e. Rs. At the time of superannuation of the petitioner i.e. on 31.03.2004, he was getting Basic Pay of Rs. 8,650/-. Accordingly, the pension of the petitioner was fixed on the said amount of Rs. 8,650/-. However, the petitioner requested for grant of pension on his actual Basic salary of Rs. 9,000/- and not on last pay drawn i.e. Rs. 8,650/-, which is the consequence of the punishment order, the life of which is only up to the date of superannuation i.e. 31.03.2004 The said request was not accepted by the respondent Panchayat and therefore the petitioner preferred the captioned petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by way of impugned order. Hence, the appellant has preferred present appeal challenging the said order. 8. Moreover, when the earlier punishment order of withholding of five increments with future effect was passed and when the direction of the Tribunal was to impose lesser punishment, it transpires from the bare perusal of the punishment order dated 16.09.2003 that more than one self-contradictory statements were made. Firstly, it says that the date of retirement of the petitioner is 31.03.2004 and two increments be stopped without future effect. Moreover, the petitioner was not to draw any increment since he had already attained the maximum pay scale. The second reading of the order dated 16.09.2003 also suggests that the pay of the petitioner is to be reduced by two stages. The Disciplinary Authority in the punishment order itself refers to the fact that the earlier punishment of withholding of five increments with future effect was too harsh and therefore lesser punishment was to be imposed. When this was the logic, reduction of pay by two stages cannot be said to be lesser punishment. Withholding of increments, with or without future effect, is minor punishment and reduction of pay is major penalty under the Rules. When the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that since earlier punishment of withholding of five increments with future effect was too harsh and therefore some lesser punishment was to be imposed, the Disciplinary Authority could not have imposed punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner by two stages and therefore we are of the view that conflicting reasons are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 16.09.2003 9. It is also required to be noted that the Disciplinary (Authority) has already implemented its order at the relevant time whereby the amount was recovered from the petitioner and was deposited in the account of District Panchayat on 24.03.2004 Entry to that effect is also made in the service-book which was approved by the competent authority. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case when the punishment of withholding of five increments with future effect was considered to be too harsh by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore punishment of withholding of two increments without future effect was subsequently passed by the Disciplinary Authority, there was no reason to further impose any punishment which at the first instance the respondent Panchayat had not imposed. In fact from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent District Panchayat it is clear that they prepared the pension papers on the basis of the salary of the petitioner at Rs. 9000/-. However, because of the audit objection taken by the concerned authority, pension papers were sent back to the respondent Panchayat with a direction to rectify the mistake committed in sending the pension papers. We are of the view that respondent Panchayat has rightly sent the pension papers on the basis of the salary of the petitioner at Rs. 9,000/-. Thus, the audit objection was not correct. Accordingly, learned Single Judge has rightly directed the respondent authorities to revise the pension papers of the petitioner on the basis of Rs. 9,000/-. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions and in view of the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the petition. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. However, learned advocate for the appellant requested that the learned Single Judge directed the present appellant to pay the arrears of pension and other retirement dues to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and as the present appeal is filed, the appellant has not complied with the said order and therefore he requested that further time of three months be granted for compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge. We are inclined to accept the request made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and direct the appellant Panchayat to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 11. In view of dismissal of the appeal, civil application also stands disposed of.