ORDER D.N. Patel, J. - This Letters Patent appeal has been preferred by original petitioner against judgment and order dated 9th December, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5789 of 2014, which was preferred for higher pay scale of Draftman Grade-I and vide said order this prayer has been rejected and hence, original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is the original petitioner and the Draftman members of this appellant are total 11 in number, out of which eight have already retired as Draftman, whereas three are still working on the said posts in the revised pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6000/-. 3. It has been submitted by counsel appearing for the appellant that as per Annexure 6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, Draftman members of this appellant are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. This contention is not accepted mainly for the reason that (a) The members of this appellant were never appointed on the post of Draftman Grade-I nor as Draftman Grade-II. (b) Looking to their appointment letters, which are annexed to the supplementary affidavit to the Letters Patent Appeal, it appears that in the Forest Department they were appointed only as Draftman. Nothing has been mentioned there as to whether the post in question is of Draftman Grade-I, Grade-II or Grade-III, but, the fact remains that the posts of Draftman sanctioned in the Forest Department carries pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- which is of Draftman Grade-III. (c) It appears that this appellant wants to take the benefit of the fact that in their appointment Letters, nothing is mentioned as to whether the posts of Draftman in question are of Grade-I. Grade-II or Grade-III, but, looking to Paragraph No. 18 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondent State in W.P.(S) 5789/2014, it appears that the sanctioned posts of Draftman in the Forest Department is of Draftman Grade-III. (d) There is a higher pay-scale for higher grade of the post of Draftman but, it is meant for Draftman-I. Such posts were never in existence in the Forest Department. (d) There is a higher pay-scale for higher grade of the post of Draftman but, it is meant for Draftman-I. Such posts were never in existence in the Forest Department. Thus, even if the appointment letters are silent, in further narration with respect to the post of Draftsman i.e. whether the posts in question are Grade I, Grade-II or Grade-III, the fact remains that the only sanctioned post in the Forest Department is of Draftman Grade-III and hence, even if it is not mentioned in their appointment letters, the members of this appellant were appointed only as Draftman Grade-III and nothing beyond that and hence, they are entitled to the basic pay scale attached with the sanctioned post of Draftman Grade-III. (e) Thus, it appears that in the Forest Department only one type of post of Draftman was sanctioned, i.e. of Draftman Grade - III and hence, members of this appellant were rightly given the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- as they are not entitled to the pay scale of the post of Draftman Grade-I or Draftman Grade-II. 4. Thus, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition and we see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 5789 of 2014 vide order dated 9th December, 2016. 5. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.