JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate for petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent. 2. In present petition, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that: “14(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.12.2014 reducing the first higher pay scale of the petitioners to Rs.1640-2900 and further directing respondents to modify the said order by granting the higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 to the petitioners from completion of 9 years i.e. 21/8/92, with all consequential benefits with 18% interest. 14 (B) Directing the respondents to grant second higher pay scale to the petitioners as per resolution dated 02.07.2007 in the pay scale of 8000-13500 from 21/8/2007 and, revise their pay scale and grant arrears accordingly alongwith 18% interest.” 3. At the outset, learned advocate for petitioner and learned AGP jointly submitted that the claim raised by the petitioner and rival contentions by the contesting parties have been considered by this Court in identical case namely SCA No. 2902 of 2015 to 2904 of 2015 and SCA No. 4233 of 2015 and SCA No. 4234 of 2015. It is further jointly submitted by learned advocates that the said petitions came to be decided by the Court vide order dated 17.12.2015. The learned advocates have jointly also submitted that the said common decision dated 17.12.2015 was carried in Appeal by way of LPA No. 211 of 2017 and connected matters. The said Appeal came to be decided vide order dated 9.2.2017. 4. Copy of the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by learned Single Judge and copy of the order dated 09.2.2017 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in the said LPA are tendered on record. 5. In the decision dated 17.12.2015, the Court observed and held, inter alia, that: “10. The only issue that requires deliberation is of clause 3(3) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 since there are four feeder cadre posts, according to the respondents, to the promotional post of Child Development Officer. It is also contended that in 1989 CDPO Recruitment Rules, there is only one feeder cadre post i.e. Mukhya Sevika. The only issue that requires deliberation is of clause 3(3) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 since there are four feeder cadre posts, according to the respondents, to the promotional post of Child Development Officer. It is also contended that in 1989 CDPO Recruitment Rules, there is only one feeder cadre post i.e. Mukhya Sevika. 10.1 The Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) (Female) in the Gujarat Public Health Recruitment Rules, 1989, provides for appointment to the post of Child Development Officer which is made by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons who have worked for not less than seven years as Mukhya Sevika in the Integrated Child Development Service Block and Nutrition Programme sponsored by the Government of India or the State Government or by direct selection or by temporary transfer on deputation basis from a suitable officer working in the cadre of Gujarat Development Service Class-II of the Panchayat and Rural Housing Development or District Social Defence Officer Class-II of the Social Defence Department. It is further provided for requisite qualifications and age if the selection is to be made by direct selection. 10.2 Along with this, if Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 is taken into consideration it provides for higher pay scale on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service instead of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service. 10.3 Rule 2(17) provides that a person fetching higher pay scale meant to be promotional scale before 1.6.1987 shall continue to fetch the same. A combined reading of clause 3(8) of Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 and clause 2(17) of the Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 shows that after higher grade scale has come into effect, if any change in the hierarchy has been brought by the Government in the Recruitment Rules and as a result of that change, new post has come into existence or the hierarchy of the post has changed, then, the said clause would have no applicability. This combined reading would have bearing on the case of the petitioners and subsequent change of hierarchy may not affect their entitlement. 10.4 In the Recruitment Rules of 1989, according to the respondents, a change in promotional hierarchy has come into being with four cadres as per clause 3(3) for higher grade scale as prescribed in Schedule-I and the same is sought to be applied in case of the petitioners. 10.4 In the Recruitment Rules of 1989, according to the respondents, a change in promotional hierarchy has come into being with four cadres as per clause 3(3) for higher grade scale as prescribed in Schedule-I and the same is sought to be applied in case of the petitioners. 10.5 As noted above, in case, other similarly situated persons following decision of this Court rendered not only in the year 1999 but later on in Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2010 vide order dated 18.2.2010, the first higher pay scale Rs. 2000-3500 has been granted. The petitioners herein were Child Development Project (Female) Officers who have retired in the year 2009 and they were all appointed as Mukhya Sevika between 1976 and 1982. Some of them already retired were granted Rs. 2000-3500 for more than 13 years. To employ 1989 CDPO Recruitment Rules and to set at naught grant of higher pay scale would not be in consonance with the decision rendered time and again by this Court. 11. All these petitions are allowed. They shall be paid their respective dues within four (4) weeks of receipt of copy of this order. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly”. 6. In the LPA No. 211 of 2017 and connected matters filed against the said decision, Hon'ble Court observed, vide decision dated 09.02.2017 that: “20. The decision upon which the reliance is placed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as no mistake was committed by the present appellants while according the benefit of higher grade scale to the concerned petitioners and therefore there is no question of recovery of such amount on the basis of the undertaking given by the concerned petitioners. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the petitions. Hence, the present appeals are not required to be entertained and accordingly the same are dismissed. As the appeals are dismissed, civil applications also stand dismissed”. 7. By the said decision, Hon'ble Division Bench confirmed the decision by learned Single Judge. 8. Hence, the present appeals are not required to be entertained and accordingly the same are dismissed. As the appeals are dismissed, civil applications also stand dismissed”. 7. By the said decision, Hon'ble Division Bench confirmed the decision by learned Single Judge. 8. Learned AGP and learned advocate for petitioner also clarified that the decision by Division bench was carried before Hon'ble Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2017. The said order dated 4.2.2017 reads thus: “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Delay condoned. We do not find any reason to entertain these Special Leave Petitions, which are, accordingly, dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of”. 9. So far as the present petition is concerned, the petitioner has mentioned following factual background: “2. The petitioners most respectfully states that the petitions have retired from service. The petitioners humbly state that the petitioners were granted the first higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 from the date of their passing the departmental examination. The copy of the order dated 18.01.99 is annexed herewith and markes as Annexure-A to the petition. 3. The petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as Mukhya Sevika on 24/3/1983 and was posted at Ranavav, Junagadh. The petitioner humbly states that the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Child Development Officer on 4/2/2003 and she was posted at Rajula, District Amreli and thenafter she has retired as CDPO, Bhavnagar. Though there were no Departmental examination rules framed by the respondent state authority and petitioner was due for first higher pay scale after completion of 9 years from the date of the appointment, the Respondent State has wrongly applied the departmental examination rules and granted first higher pay scale from 28/11/96 though she was entitled for the same from 20/8/92, i.e. after completion of 9 years from the date of appointment. The petitioner also states that the juniors to the petitioner were also granted the benefits of higher pay scale and petitioner was deprived of the same and though the petitioner has made many communication/ correspondences, the Respondent State has not cared to solve the grievance of the petitioner and hence, this petition. 4. By the order dated 22.12.2014, the respondent no.1 reduced the first higher pay scale of the petitioner to 1640-2900 from 2000-3500 relying on the government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and 02.07.2007. 4. By the order dated 22.12.2014, the respondent no.1 reduced the first higher pay scale of the petitioner to 1640-2900 from 2000-3500 relying on the government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and 02.07.2007. A copy of the order dated 22.12.2014 is annexed herewith and marked as AnnexureB. The said higher pay scale is to be granted after completion of nine years of service from the date of appointment.” 10. From the narration of the said facts and the reliefs prayed by the petitioner, it becomes clear that the subject matter of present petition is similar to the subject matter as well as the issues and contentions which came to be decided by the Court by learned Single Judge and Hon'ble Division Bench in above mentioned decisions dated 17.12.2005 and 09.02.2017. 11. In backdrop of similar facts and circumstances, this Court decided SCA No.11148 of 2014 with SCA No.10193 of 2015 to 10209 of 2015 and SCA No.7205 of 2015, vide decision dated 16.11.2017. 12. In the said decision dated 16.11.2017, this Court, after taking into account the decision dated 17.12.2015 by learned Single Judge in SCA No.2902 of 2015 and connected matters as well as in the decision dated 09.02.2017 in LPA No.211 of 2017, the Court observed that “7. In this view of the matter, present petitions deserve to be and can be disposed of with following directions. 7.1 The competent authority of the respondents shall take-up the case of present petitioners for re-consideration in light of the decision dated 17.12.2015 in Special Civil Application Nos.2902 of 2015 and connected matters read with the direction by Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision dated 9.2.2017 in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.211 of 2017 and connected matters. 7.2 The facts of the case of each petitioner shall be examined in light of the observations in above mentioned decision and accordingly, appropriate orders with regard to higher pay scale in case of each of the petitioners shall be passed by competent authority in consonance with above mentioned two decisions, wherever applicable in light of the facts of each case. 7.3 The said process will be completed as expeditiously as possible but not later than 6 weeks. 7.3 The said process will be completed as expeditiously as possible but not later than 6 weeks. 7.4 It is clarified that in those cases where the petitioners are in service, appropriate effect of the revision in pay shall be given, by taking into account facts of each case and according to the conclusions and directions in said two decisions in their salary and arrears shall be paid, (whenever it becomes payable) as expeditiously as possible but within 4 weeks from the date of decision. 7.5 So far as the petitioners who have retired from service are concerned, appropriate effect shall be given, subject to and in light of said two decisions, in their respective salary and their salary will be revised accordingly and arrears, if payable, shall be paid within 4 weeks from the date of decision. Simultaneously, consequential effect shall be given by refixing the date of pension and the amount payable towards pension shall also be revised and the arrears (which may become payable) towards difference in amount of pension shall also be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of decision of the competent authority. The amount payable towards compounded pension and gratuity if required to be revised shall also be appropriately revised and that payment shall also be made in above mentioned time limit. The authority shall pass reasoned and speaking order which shall be conveyed to each of the petitioner. With aforesaid observations and directions, present petitions are disposed of. Orders accordingly”. 13. In this backdrop, learned advocate for petitioner and respondent and learned AGP jointly submitted that present petition may be disposed of with similar observation and direction as in the dated 16.11.2017 in SCA No.11148 of 2014 and connected matters. 14. In view of the said joint submission and request, following order is passed: (a). The respondent shall take up present petitioner's case for reconsideration. (b). 14. In view of the said joint submission and request, following order is passed: (a). The respondent shall take up present petitioner's case for reconsideration. (b). After taking into account the decision dated 17.12.2015, in SCA No.2902 of 2015, the competent authority will reexamine case and the claim of the present petitioner in light of the observation/ decision in said two orders and appropriate direction with regard to higher payscale in case of present petitioner shall be passed by the competent authority in consonance with the observation and decision in above mentioned 2 orders i.e. order dated 17.12.2015 and order dated 09.02.2017, as may be applicable in light of facts of present petition. (c). The said process will be completed expeditiously, however, not later that 6 weeks from the date of receipt of Certified copy of this order. (d). In view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service, arrears which may be payable, shall be paid expeditiously but not later than 4 weeks from the date of the decision. (e). Appropriate effect shall be given, subject to and in light of said two decisions, in their respective salary and their salary will be revised accordingly and arrears, if payable, shall be paid within 4 weeks from the date of the decision. Simultaneously, consequential effect shall be given by re-fixing pension and the amount payable towards pension shall also be revised and the arrears (which may become payable) towards difference in amount of pension shall also be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of decision of the competent authority. The amount payable towards compounded pension and gratuity if required to be revised shall also be appropriately revised and that payment shall also be made in above mentioned time limit. The authority shall pass reasoned and speaking order which shall be conveyed to the petitioner. 15. With aforesaid observations and directions, present petition is disposed of. Orders accordingly.