JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As the common question of law and facts arise in both these Letters Patent Appeals, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order 3rd March 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6032 of 2003, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the said Special Civil Application and thereby quashed and set-aside the clarification issued by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 9th June 1999 denying revision of pension in accordance with the recommendations made by the Fifth Central Pay Commission under the Gujarat Civil Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 1998 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Pay Rules"] to the original petitioners; more particularly, all those employees who had opted for voluntary retirement as per the Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970, the original respondents have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 872 of 2016. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 15th June 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2183 of 2004, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition, after following the decision rendered by cognate Bench in Special Civil Application No. 6032 of 2003 dated 3rd March 2016, the State of Gujarat has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1405 of 2016. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 872 of 2016 are narrated hereunder, and the said Letters Patent Appeal be treated as the lead matter. 5. The respondents-original petitioners joined services in the respective Departments of the State of Gujarat during the period between 1964 to 1966. Each of the respondents-original petitioners opted for voluntary retirement upon completion of 25 or more years of service in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970 passed by the Finance Department of the State Government. Under the said Resolution, it was resolved that those employees who opt for voluntary retirement, the benefit of period of five years' shall be given in calculating the pensionable service; subject to a rider that by virtue of the said notional extension, the total pensionable service does not exceed 33 years or the total period of service, had the government employee retired in normal course. It appears that thereafter, the respective petitioners/pensioners were granted benefit of revised pension, while giving effect to the Third Central Pay Commission as well as Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations. That thereafter, the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission for the State employees came to be accepted by the State Government, and therefore, the State Government resolved to accept recommendations of the State Committee and resolved to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission for its employees vide Government Resolution dated 20th January 1998. The State Government thereafter came out with the Gujarat Civil Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 1998. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per clause 2 (2) of the Resolution dated 20th January 1998, it was decided to extend the benefit of revised pension on implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations to those employees also who opted voluntary retirement under the Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. However, subsequently vide Resolution dated 9th June 1999, it was clarified that the benefit of revised pension, as per Gujarat Civil Service [Revision of Pay] Rules, 1998 shall not be extended/available to the employees, who retired under the Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. The aforesaid came to be challenged by the respective original petitioners/those employees who opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. That, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said petition and thereby quashed and set-aside Government Resolution dated 9th June 1999 and has directed the State Government to grant the benefit of revised pension to the original petitioners-employees who opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970, on the basis of recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State of Gujarat has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals. 6. Ms. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State of Gujarat has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals. 6. Ms. Maithli Mehta, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the Government Resolution dated 9th June 1999 by which a conscious decision was taken by the State Government not to grant revised pension, as per the Gujarat Civil Services [Revision of Pay] Rules, 1998 to those employees who opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Mehta, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State that the decision of the learned Single Judge shall run contrary to the State Government's decision under which the concerned employees were permitted to opt for voluntary retirement and it was decided to grant extension of five years notionally for the pensionable service only. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in directing the State Government to grant the benefit of revised pension as per the ROP Rules of 1998. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Appeals. 7. The present Appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Yatin Soni, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-original petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2183 of 2004 and Shri Maulik J Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-original petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6032 of 2003. 7.1 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when earlier, there was a revision of pension as per the recommendations of Third and Fourth Central Pay Commissions, the benefit of revision of pension was granted to the employees who opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. It is submitted that even at the relevant time also, clarification was sought from the State Government and it was clarified that the revision of pension, as per the recommendations of Third and Fourth Central Pay Commission reports would be available to all those employees who opted for voluntary retirement under the Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. It is submitted that even at the relevant time also, clarification was sought from the State Government and it was clarified that the revision of pension, as per the recommendations of Third and Fourth Central Pay Commission reports would be available to all those employees who opted for voluntary retirement under the Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. It is submitted that there was no reason or logic for the State Government to come out with a Government Resolution dated 20th January 1998 to deny the benefits of revision of pension to those employees who opted for voluntary retirement by virtue of Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. It is further submitted that as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, when the statutory rules i.e., Gujarat Civil Service [Revision of Pay] Rules, 1998 provides that the benefit of revision of pension shall be available to the employees who have opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970 [as per Clause 2 (2)], in that case, the State Government could not have over-ruled the same by passing a resolution and thereby could not have set-aside the statutory rules. It is submitted that therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge. 7.2 Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Appeals. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective sides at length. 9. We have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd March 2016 passed by learned Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6032 of 2003. 10. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original petitioners opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. On considering the said Government Resolution, it appears that additional five years' service on notional basis was granted to those employees who opt for voluntary retirement and that the aforesaid period of five years notional extension was required to be considered for the purpose of pensionable service. It is required to be noted that thereafter, when the implementation of Third Central Pay Commission and Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations arose, all those employees who opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970 were granted the benefit of revision of pension, as per the recommendations of Third and Fourth Central Pay Commission reports. It is required to be noted that thereafter, when the implementation of Third Central Pay Commission and Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations arose, all those employees who opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970 were granted the benefit of revision of pension, as per the recommendations of Third and Fourth Central Pay Commission reports. Even when the question with respect to revision of pension on the basis of recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission arose, the Government came out with the Gujarat Civil Service [Revision of Pay] Rules, 1998, wherein, in clause 2 (2) thereof, it is specifically provided that revision of pension as per the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission report shall be available to all those employees who have opted for voluntary retirement, pursuant to Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. Clause 2 (2) of the Government Resolution dated 20th January 1998 reads, thus - "2 (2) The benefit of the revised pay scales and fixation of pay in the revised scales as the scheme laid down in the Gujarat Civil Services/ROP Rules, 1998 should be allowed notionally in the case of voluntary retirement covered under the Government Resolution, Finance Department No. NVN-1070-3158-J dated the 8th October 1970 and notional pay so worked out should be taken into account for regulating the pension." 10.1 However, subsequently, vide a Clarificatory Circular/Resolution dated 9th June 1999, the State Government clarified that the Government Resolution dated 20th January 1998 shall not be applicable to those employees who had opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. As rightly observed and held by the learned Single Judge that the Gujarat Civil Service [Revision of Pay] Rules, 1998 were statutory rules, they could not have been set-aside by the Government by passing a resolution. 11. It is also required to be noted that earlier when the question with respect to the revision of pension, as per the recommendations of Third Central Pay Commission and Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations arose, a conscious decision was taken by the State Government to grant the benefit of revised pension on the basis of recommendations made by Third & Fourth Central Pay Commissions to all those employees who opted for voluntary retirement under Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970. When we asked a pointed question to learned AGP that what could be the logic to deny revision of pension to these employees as per the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission, when similar benefit was granted earlier while implementing the recommendations of Third and Fourth Central Pay Commissions, learned AGP was unable to justify and/or show any logic behind such a decision. 12. In the aforestated peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned Single Judge has directed the State Government to grant the benefit of revision of pension as per the statutory rules i.e., the Gujarat Civil Service [Revision of Pay] Rules, 1998 to the original petitioners-employees who opted for voluntary retirement pursuant to Government Resolution dated 8th October 1970, by quashing and setting aside the Government Resolution dated 20th January 1998, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error which calls for interference by this Court. 13. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 3rd March 2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6032 of 2003. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, these Letters Patent Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 15. Now, when the present LPAs are dismissed, as all those original petitioners are retired employees and their livelihood is depending upon the pension and it is reported that they are aged approximately 80 years of age, it is hoped that now the State Government shall implement the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, confirmed by this Court, at the earliest.