JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the oral judgment dated 15.06.2016, by which, the learned Single Judge quashed the orders passed by the original respondent No.2-Corporation dated 21.06.2010, by which, the pay-scale granted to the petitioners namely scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- was withdrawn. The learned Single Judge declared that the petitioners – the original respondents herein are entitled to the benefit of the revised pay-scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- in accordance with the Fifth Pay Commission on scale to scale basis. 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The petitioners were employees of the Gujarat State Rural Development Corporation. They were working in the cadre of “Junior Officers” in the setup of the Corporation. 2.2 The Corporation in the year 1977, proposed restructuring of cadres of Research Assistant, Assistant, Agricultural Supervisors in the pay-scale of Rs.425-800/- and Rs.425-700/- by creating a new common cadre of Junior Officers in the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900/- The petitioners were accordingly placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900/- 3. Upon the implementation of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, by a Government Resolution dated 29.09.1987, the Corporation decided to make applicable, to its employees the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. Accordingly, the pay-scale of Junior Officers which was Rs.550-900/- was revised to that of Rs.1,640-2,900/- Further, by a Resolution dated 06.11.1995, the Corporation decided to extend the benefits of the higher grade scale in accordance with Resolution dated 16.08.1994, to the employees of the Corporation, and the petitioners were therefore given such benefit in the higher pay-scale of Rs.2,200-4,000/- against the pay-scale of Rs.1,640-2,900/- 4. By a Government Notification dated 20.03.1991, notifying the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) (Amendment) Rules 1991, the initial pay-scale of Rs.550-900/- was revised to that of Rs.2,000-3,200/- As a result of such amendment, the petitioners made a representation that since the revised pay-scale corresponding to the initial pay-scale of Rs.550-900/- was Rs.2,000-3,200/- such benefit be extended to the petitioners and their scales be re-fixed to Rs2,000 -3,200/- Failing to get a response from the Government, the employees of the Corporation raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal being Reference (I.T) No. 40 of 1997. The Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, passed an Award dated 21.02.1998, holding that this pay-scale of the Junior Officers be revised from that of Rs.550-900/- to Rs.2,000-3,200/- 5. After the Award was passed, the Rural Development Corporation wrote to the State stating that in the event the order of the Tribunal is not challenged, the Corporation would have to implement the Award and grant the benefits of the revised pay-scale to the petitioners. The State Government by its communication dated 06.07.1998, informed the Corporation that it was for the Corporation to decide on seeking the opinion of its lawyer whether the Award needs to be implemented or challenged. 5.1 The Managing Director of the Corporation by an order dated 17.09.1998, when advised not to prefer an Appeal, by the said order implemented the revision in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal and the pay-scale of the petitioners was revised to that from Rs.1,640-2,900/- to Rs.2,000-3,200/- 6. The Government of Gujarat by a Resolution dated 09.11.2001 extended the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 to the employees of the Corporation on a scale to scale basis. Against the pay-scale of Rs.1,640-2900/- the pay-scale was of Rs.5,500-Rs.9,000/- However, as is noted earlier, that since the petitioner got the benefit of higher grade scale and their pay-scale was Rs.2200-Rs.4,000/- the corresponding revised scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- was granted to the petitioners. 7. It appears that when a representation was made by the petitioners to seek corresponding implementation of the Industrial Tribunal’s Award and give the effect thereof to the petitioners in accordance with the Fifth Pay Commission’s recommendation, the Government seems to have turned around and sought an explanation from the Managing Director as to how the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was implemented and the Government advised disciplinary action against the officers. Proceedings were initiated and after due investigation it was found that the implementation of the Tribunal’s Award was in accordance with law and there was no negligence by the Officers of the Corporation. 8. After exchange of correspondence between the Government and the Corporation, the Corporation passed the impugned order dated 21.06.2010, by which the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- granted to the petitioners was withdrawn. 8. After exchange of correspondence between the Government and the Corporation, the Corporation passed the impugned order dated 21.06.2010, by which the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- granted to the petitioners was withdrawn. According to the State Government and the Corporation, it was their stand that though the Corporation had requested the State Government for appropriate fixation on scale to scale basis i.e. Rs.8,000-13,500/-, the State Government refused to sanction such a scale stating that the petitioners must be placed back in the scale of Rs.2,200-4,000/- (as per Fourth Pay Commission recommendation). According to the State Government, the Corporation has given the benefits without obtaining approval from the State Government. Therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.8,0000-13,500/- and their pay needs to be re-fixed taking the initial pay-scale as per the Fourth Pay Commission to that of Rs.2,200-4,000/- Recovery was ordered by the impugned order too. 9. Aggrieved by this order, the petition was preferred. It was the case of the petitioners that the cancellation of their placement in the pay-scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- was illegal. 10. It was further contended in the petition that once it was in principle accepted by the Corporation to accept the Award of the Tribunal and implement the same, it was not open for the Government and the Corporation in turn to pass the impugned order. 11. The learned Single Judge having considered the background of the facts allowed the petition quashing the order of withdrawing the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- 12. From the facts above stated, it becomes apparently clear that a conscious decision was taken by the Corporation after keeping the Government in the loop with regard to the implementation of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The correspondence on record shows and even it has been so conceded by the learned counsel for the Corporation before the learned Single Judge, that the Corporation did recommend the grant of Fifth Pay Commission in favour of the petitioners. However at a belated stage, the Government has turned around and blamed the Corporation for not challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, once it had attained finality. 13. However at a belated stage, the Government has turned around and blamed the Corporation for not challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal, once it had attained finality. 13. Benefits given on the restructuring of posts in the year 1984 and a consequential initial fixation in the pay-scale of Rs.550-900- by a resolution in 1987, which has been revised from time to time is sought to be undone after more than 25 years, under the pretext of financial implications, particularly when most of the original petitioners had retired from service or were at the fag end of their career. 14. The contention of Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitting that the learned Single Judge committed an error in granting the relief of revision on a scale to scale basis, as the petitioners were not so entitled to cannot be sustained. 15. Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that, the benefit of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal could not have been granted to the petitioners. This submission also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Award of the Tribunal was consciously accepted by the Corporation, in consultation with the Government. To turn around and now contend that the order of the Tribunal ought to have been challenged is clearly an after thought. 16. It does not even befit the State, now to contend that the pay-scales given to the Junior Officers were never approved by the Government. Facts suggests that at every stage the Government was consulted and it was only thereafter that the benefits were accorded to the petitioners. 17. The submission of Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore do not deserve consideration and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 18. Ms. Tejal Vashi, learned advocate for the respondents has drawn our attention that pending the petition, a Civil Application was filed by the applicants-original petitioners praying that the Corporation be directed to pay the retirement benefits to the applicants who are retired. The Court in such Civil Application has passed the following order: “1. 18. Ms. Tejal Vashi, learned advocate for the respondents has drawn our attention that pending the petition, a Civil Application was filed by the applicants-original petitioners praying that the Corporation be directed to pay the retirement benefits to the applicants who are retired. The Court in such Civil Application has passed the following order: “1. By way of this application, the applicant original petitioner has prayed for a direction that pending final hearing of Special Civil Application No.7644 of 2010, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the opponents herein to pay forthwith the retirement benefits to the applicants herein who have already retired from the service of the opponent No.2 herein on reaching superannuation age and further direct the opponents to extend the same benefits to the other applicants who will retire in future from the service of the opponent No.2 herein. 2. In view of the calculation tendered at Annexure: B to the reply affidavit filed by opponent No.2 at page 22, 4 persons have already retired and 3 persons are retiring in the near future. Opponent No.2 is directed to release the undisputed amount shown in the table to the applicants who had already retired. Accordingly, Shri B.D. Gosai-applicant No.4, will be paid Rs.12,82,427/-, Shri A.G. Patel-applicant No. 8 will be paid Rs.13,50,609/-, Smt. P.R. Zalawadia-applicant No.7 will be paid Rs.9,74,943/- and Shri B.K. Pipaliya-applicant No.6 will be paid Rs.9,18,259/-. The respondent No.2 will follow same procedure qua applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 6 as and when they retire from service. 3. The disputed amount which is kept by the respondent corporation will be invested in FDR initially for period of 5 years and will be renewed from time to time. Interest accrued on the same will not be paid to anyone and whosoever succeeds in the matter will take the amount. The undisputed amount will be paid within 1 month from today. Civil Application is granted to the aforesaid extent.” 19. As noted in the order, as far as the disputed amount, which was the subject matter of the petition was directed to be kept by the respondent - Corporation in a fixed deposit, initially for a period of five years and thereafter be renewed from time to time. Interest accrued on the same was also directed not to be paid to anyone till the petitioners succeed in the petition. Interest accrued on the same was also directed not to be paid to anyone till the petitioners succeed in the petition. Ms Vashi therefore submits that in view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the disputed amount which is lying with the Corporation and is so invested be directed to be paid to the original petitioners. Needless to say that in view of the fact that the order of the learned Single Judge is being confirmed and the appeal is being dismissed, the disputed amount that has been deposited with the Corporation and is so invested be directed to be paid to the original petitioners forthwith. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Civil Application No. 11950 of 2017 is dismissed.