JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for confirmation on the post of Inspector Grade I/Development Officer Grade-I with effect from 16.06.1985 along with fixation of pay, arrears etc. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: 2.1. By an order dated 12.06.1980, the petitioner was appointed as Inspector with effect from 16.06.1980 on probation. He was appointed on remuneration of Rs.500/- month and during the initial period of probation of 12 months, he was required to produce a premium of at least Rs.75,000/- to be eligible for promotion as Probationary Inspector Grade-I, which is equivalent to Development Officer Grade-I. 2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that accordingly the petitioner had produced a premium of about Rs.95,000/- on 15.06.1981, which was more than the required premium of Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter, on fulfilling the aforesaid qualification, the petitioner was required to be placed as Probationary Inspector, Grade-I and on clearing the departmental examination, he was required to be placed in the grade of Rs.250-852. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner was terminated on 20.10.1982 after holding the departmental inquiry, the same was challenged by the petitioner by instituting Regular Civil Suit No.1038 of 1982. The petitioner was also sought permanent injunction against his termination. The petitioner was granted permanent injunction against the order of removal passed by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jamnagar on 01.12.1982. It appears that there were efforts made by the petitioner for compromise in the Civil Suit, but the same did not get fructified and ultimately, by the judgment and decree dated 07.06.1996, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by 4th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jamnagar. Regular Civil Appeal No.109 of 1996 filed by the respondents was also dismissed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamnagar vide judgment and order dated 30.09.2013. The respondents challenged the order dated 30.09.2013 by filing Second Appeal No.85 of 2014 before this Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 08.07.2014. The petitioner was continued in the service due to the injunction granted in his favour and ultimately, he reached the age of superannuation in the year 2018. 3. The respondents challenged the order dated 30.09.2013 by filing Second Appeal No.85 of 2014 before this Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 08.07.2014. The petitioner was continued in the service due to the injunction granted in his favour and ultimately, he reached the age of superannuation in the year 2018. 3. Learned advocate Ms.Amrita Thakore appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has retired as a Probationary Inspector only and no further benefits are granted as envisaged in the appointment order. She has submitted that the petitioner had cleared the departmental examination in the year 1981 and accordingly, he had informed the respondent authorities. She has also submitted that the communication dated 28.01.1982 reveals that the result of the examination was communicated to the respondent-Company and hence, after clearing the departmental examination within the period as specified in the conditions of the appointment order, the respondents should have placed the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.250-852 and thereafter, revised the same. She has further submitted that till the date of the retirement of the petitioner, he was paid the salary of the Probationary Inspector though he has cleared the same and his termination order is also set aside. Thus, she has submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.250-850 with effect from 16.06.1982 i.e. the date of passing of the departmental examination. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Palak Thakkar appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had never communicated his result of passing of the departmental examination and hence, he is not entitled for the pay-scale as prayed by him. He has further submitted that the petitioner has also not passed the departmental examination within the period of 12 months as per the conditions of the appointment order and hence, the present petition may not be entertained. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. The petitioner was appointed as an Inspector on probation vide order dated 12.06.1980 with effect from 16.06.1980. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. The petitioner was appointed as an Inspector on probation vide order dated 12.06.1980 with effect from 16.06.1980. The condition no.2 of the appointment order mentions that the petitioner is appointed on a probation for a period of 12 months during which he is required to produce a premium of at least Rs.75,000/- to be considered as eligible for promotion to the post of Probationary Inspector Grade-I. Accordingly, the petitioner produced the premium of Rs.95,000/- on 15.06.1981, which was more than the required premium. Thus, on the fulfillment of the condition as stipulated in the appointment order, the petitioner was required to be treated as a Probationary Inspector Grade-I with effect from 15.06.1981 on the production of the premium of Rs.95,000/-, which is not done by the respondents. After, the petitioner is treated as Probationary Inspector Grade-I, he would be eligible for the post of Inspector Grade-I, if he fulfills the criteria of the condition no.7 of the appointment order, which inter alia reads thus: “7. During your probationary period as Trainee Inspector or as Probationary Inspector Grade I (which shall not exceed three years), you should pass the Inspector's Examination conducted by the Federation of Insurance Institutes or such other examination which may be stipulated.” The condition no.7 specifies that a Probationary Inspector Grade-I, on passing the Inspector's Examination, is to be treated as Inspector Grade-I and he is to be placed in the pay-scale of Rs.250-850. The condition, thereafter, further stipulates that the Inspector's Examination, as referred in clause-7, has to be cleared within 12 months in two attempts. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner cleared the examination in October, 1981 within 12 months, which is reflected from the certificate which is produced in the writ petition. 7. Thus, as per the clause-7, the petitioner was required to pass the departmental examination between the period from 15.06.1981 till 15.06.1982. Unquestionably, the petitioner cleared the examination within a period of 12 months. On passing of such examination, the respondents were required to place the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.250-850, and were required to be treated as Inspector Grade-I. 8. Unquestionably, the petitioner cleared the examination within a period of 12 months. On passing of such examination, the respondents were required to place the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.250-850, and were required to be treated as Inspector Grade-I. 8. The respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the aforementioned certificate of passing of the departmental examination in the year 1981 was never communicated. Such contention on behalf of the respondent authorities is ill-founded since the communication dated 20.01.1982 of the Insurance Company reveals that the petitioner had communicated his result to the company, wherein the petitioner was also praised on passing the Inspector's Examination. 9. Thus, it can be safely presumed that the petitioner had communicated his result to the respondent-Company. Furthermore, the details of Probationary Inspector of Rajkot Division for placement of Probationary Inspector Grade-I, which is produced at Annexure-C, at page-126, wherein the name of the petitioner is figuring at serial no.2 clearly depicts that the petitioner had passed the Probationary Inspector's Examination in the year 1981 (incorrectly stated as 1980). From the two documents, which are placed on record at Annexure-E i.e. a communication dated 10.01.1982 and at Annexure-C clearly reveal that the petitioner has passed the departmental examination and the respondent-Company was also aware of the same. It appears that the entire confusion has occurred due to pendency of the litigation against the termination or the petitioner. The petitioner was terminated by the order dated 20.10.1982, which was subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No.1038 of 1992. The petitioner was protected by an interim injunction and he continued to remain in the service. Ultimately, on 07.06.1996 the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and the same culminated in the dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No.109 of 1996 by the judgment and order dated 08.07.2014 passed by this Court. After Second Appeal No.85 of 2014 filed by the respondent-Company was dismissed by this Court, the petitioner was required to be granted all the benefits. The respondents remained quiescent and did not place the petitioner in the grade of Rs.250-850 by treating him as an Inspector Grade-I. The respondents should have followed the same and conferred the benefits to the petitioner since the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions which are required for promotional post and pay-scale. 10. The respondents remained quiescent and did not place the petitioner in the grade of Rs.250-850 by treating him as an Inspector Grade-I. The respondents should have followed the same and conferred the benefits to the petitioner since the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions which are required for promotional post and pay-scale. 10. Thus, the action of the respondent authorities ignoring the judgments of this Court passed in Second Appeal as well as the judgment and decree passed by the trial court needs to be deprecated. The respondents were required to follow their own conditions/clauses incorporated in the appointment order of the petitioner in wake of the undisputed fact that he had also cleared the departmental examination within a period of 12 months. Thus, the petitioner was required to be placed in the grade pay of Rs.250-850 by treating him as Inspector Grade-I with effect from 16.06.1982 and thereafter, he was to be confirmed on the post of Grade-I with effect from 16.06.1985 after completion of 3 years as provided in clause-7 of the appointment order. 11. On the backdrop of the foregoing observations and analysis, the present petition succeeds. The respondents are hereby directed to grant the benefit to the petitioner as per the clauses/conditions mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner and place him in the grade pay of Rs.250-850 with effect from 16.06.1985 i.e. the completion of 3 years from 16.06.1982. The respondents are also hereby directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner and grant the consequential arrears after revising his pay accordingly. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute.