ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 3/8/2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6382 of 2002, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the said petition preferred by the original petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein and has quashed and set aside the subsequent Government Resolution dated 6/7/2001 by which earlier Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001 was modified and it was directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to fixed emolument at Rs. 16,000/- per month from 1/1/2001 only, and thereby the learned Single Judge has directed to pay to the original petitioner fixed employment at Rs. 16,000/- per month as per earlier Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001, the State Government has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. It is not in dispute that vide Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001 it was decided by the State Government to enhance the fixed emolument from Rs. 6000/- per month to Rs. 16,000/- per month w.e.f 1/1/1996. However, subsequently vide Government Resolution dated 6/7/2001, earlier Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001 came to be modified and fixed emolument was enhanced w.e.f 1/1/2001 only instead of 1/1/1996. The aforesaid Government Resolution dated 6/7/2001 was the subject matter of Special Civil Application before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned judgement and order and in absence of any explanation whatsoever for modification of Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001 and to pay fixed emolument at Rs. 16,000/- w.e.f 1/1/2001 instead of 1/1/1996, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgement and order has quashed and set aside the subsequent Government Resolution dated 6/7/2001 and has directed that the original petitioner be paid fixed emolument at Rs. 16,000/- per month w.e.f 1/1/1996 as per earlier Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001. 3. Having heard Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant herein and considering the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge and the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, there was no explanation at all which necessitated to issue Government Resolution dated 6/7/2001 by which earlier Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001 was modified to the extent granting fixed enhanced emolument w.e.f 1/1/2001 instead of 1/1/1996. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, there was no explanation at all which necessitated to issue Government Resolution dated 6/7/2001 by which earlier Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001 was modified to the extent granting fixed enhanced emolument w.e.f 1/1/2001 instead of 1/1/1996. It is true that it is ultimately for the Department/State to fix the cut off date for graining enhanced benefit, however, at the same time, once earlier a conscious decision was taken vide Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001 to grant enhanced fixed emolument at Rs. 16,000/- w.e.f 1/1/1996, thereafter if the same was to be modified, there must be valid reason for changing the cut off date, which is lacking in the present case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the subsequent Government Resolution dated 6/7/2001 and has rightly directed the that the original petitioner be paid enhanced fixed emolument at Rs. 16,000/- per month as per Government Resolution dated 20/1/2001, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Under the circumstances, present Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No. 15408 of 2017 stands dismissed.