ORDER : 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patents is filed by the appellants-original respondents assailing the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 7.5.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 17080 of 2018. 2. The background under which the present Letters Patent Appeal is brought before us is that the sole respondent, i.e. the original petitioner, was appointed originally as a Typist in the appellant Board in the year 1988. Upon completion of 9 years’ tenure, the respondent- original petitioner was extended the benefits of the Government Resolution, granting first higher pay scale on 13.3.1996. Subsequently, on account of the fact that the original petitioner did not draw the attention of the then Executive Engineer regarding illegal appointment of five employees as Rojamdar/daily wagers, the appellant Board served a show cause notice to the present respondent on 28.8.2008. The respondent-original petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 5.9.2008. The case of the original petitioner was that on 13.7.2009, a departmental inquiry was initiated by the appellant Board against the petitioner and other erring employees. Upon completion of the inquiry, a report was submitted and accepted by the appellant Board. It was asserted that on 13.3.2011, the petitioner completed 24 years service, as a result of which, he was entitled to the benefit of a second higher grade of pay in view of Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007. Thereafter, on 31.7.2012, 3 years after completion of the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of withholding an increment for one year from 1.8.2012 without any future effect. Against the said order, the original petitioner preferred an appeal before the Member Secretary of the appellant Board. The said appeal was not entertained and came to be dismissed as time barred, by an order passed on 24.9.2013. The original petitioner-respondent herein approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 16387 or 2014 challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority and prayed for the benefit of second higher grade of pay, since the petitioner has already completed a tenure of 24 years in service. On 13.10.2016, this Court directed the appellant Board to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merit. As a result of this, the hearing took place before the Member Secretary, who is the Appellate Authority and penalty order was modified on 27.3.2017. On 13.10.2016, this Court directed the appellant Board to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merit. As a result of this, the hearing took place before the Member Secretary, who is the Appellate Authority and penalty order was modified on 27.3.2017. The penalty of withholding of one increment was maintained for a period of six months from 1.8.2012 without any future effect. Originally, the said stoppage of increment was for a period of one year. 3. The original petitioner’s case is that subsequently on 6.6.2017, the petitioner made a representation for extending the benefit of second higher grade of pay on completion of 24 years’ tenure as on 2011 but once again, since there had been no decision, the petitioner was constrained to make a detailed representation on 15.2.2018, indicating that the modified penalty order against the petitioner, which is a minor penalty, the petitioner became eligible for seeking the benefit of second higher grade of pay. Having not received a favourable response from the respondent authority, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 4150 of 2018. Here, while disposing of the petition on 16.3.2018, the appellant Board was directed to consider the representation within a period of three months. In spite of such a direction having been given by this Court, it appears that no decision was taken. This has led the original petitioner to approach this Court by way of contempt petition, being Misc. Civil Application No. 1016 of 2018. It is the case of the original petitioner that on account of a notice of contempt being served, the respondent authority has taken a negative decision on 15.9.2018. The benefit of second higher grade of pay was not granted mainly on the ground that penalty inflicted upon the petitioner was to be treated as a major penalty; that being the position, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit. Accordingly, since negative decision was taken, the contempt petition came to be disposed vide order dated 5.10.2018, so as to ensure that the petitioner can avail the remedy of challenging the said decision dated 15.9.2018. In this background, the original petitioner was ultimately compelled to file Special Civil Application No. 17080 of 2018. 4. Accordingly, since negative decision was taken, the contempt petition came to be disposed vide order dated 5.10.2018, so as to ensure that the petitioner can avail the remedy of challenging the said decision dated 15.9.2018. In this background, the original petitioner was ultimately compelled to file Special Civil Application No. 17080 of 2018. 4. The said writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, who, after hearing both the sides, passed an order on 7.5.2019, holding that the original petitioner is entitled to the benefit of second higher grade. The relevant operative part of the order contained in para 7 reads as under:- “7. For all the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Resultantly, communication dated 15.9.2018 and the decision reflected therein to deny the petitioner the second higher grade is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the second higher grade with effect from 23.3.2012 when he completed 15 years of service from the date of grant of first higher grade pay. Since the petitioner has retired his pension shall also be revised accordingly. It is, therefore, provided that the petitioner shall be granted second higher grade pay as directed above and shall be further paid the arrears arising by virtue of this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. If the amount and the arrears is not paid within the time stipulated above, it shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filling of this petition that is from 1st November, 2018. The petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.” 5. It is against this order dated 7.5.2019 passed in the writ petition, the appellant Board has chosen to prefer the present Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Learned counsel Mr. H.S. Munshaw, appearing on behalf of the appellate, has vehemently contended that the penalty inflicted upon the respondent is a major penalty. Once an employee faces major penalty, he is not entitled to seek the benefit of second higher grade and hence, the authority was justified in not extending such benefits. It has been further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in not examining the Government Resolution, by virtue of which, the original petitioner is not entitled to have the benefits. It has been further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in not examining the Government Resolution, by virtue of which, the original petitioner is not entitled to have the benefits. It has been submitted that the penalty, even in its modified form, is a major penalty, hence the original petitioner is dis-entitled to seek such benefit. Learned Single Judge has not appreciated this, which has led to passing of an erroneous order. That being the position, the order requires to be interfered with. 7. Mr. Munshaw has further submitted that the passage of 24 years is not that much material, but the material circumstance which has rightly been considered is regarding the factum of major penalty, having been inflicted. Drawing attention to the relevant clause of the Government Resolution dated 15.9.2015, which is Clause 4(b), a contention is reiterated that there is no possibility of extending such benefits to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has relied upon erroneous decisions taken under a different set of circumstance. Resultantly, a request is made to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the leaned Single Judge. 8. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Kishore Prajapati appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has vehemently submitted that the stoppage of increment in the modified form cannot be said to be a major penalty. A bare reading of such penalty ipso facto clarifies that same is minor and on that basis, it is not permissible for the Appellate Authority to deprive the legitimate benefit of second higher pay scale. According to Mr. Prajapati, in an identical situation, one Mr. Bhagwanbhai Makwana, who was punished with similar punishment, was extended the benefit of second higher grade. There is a hostile discrimination by the Appellate Authority, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, an aspect that has already been considered by the learned Single Judge. It has been submitted that in another case with a similar situation, the very same Board has extended the benefit. Considering a circular dated 5.9.2008, the Board itself has categorized the penalty into minor and major. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that withholding next increment without future effect as well as withholding next increment with future effect both are to be treated as minor penalty. Considering a circular dated 5.9.2008, the Board itself has categorized the penalty into minor and major. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that withholding next increment without future effect as well as withholding next increment with future effect both are to be treated as minor penalty. Hence, the contention is devoid of merit and there no error appears to have been committed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed. In any case, the petitioner has retired and his pension deserves to be revised by extending such benefits. Hence, since no case is made out, the order requires no interference. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Akash Chhaya has also submitted that the issue is precisely between the appellant Board and the respondent No. 1 employee. If the same situation is taken care of and considered by the learned Single Judge, without much resistance, the matter is left to the discretion of the Court. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it prima facie appears that learned Single Judge has considered the Government Resolution upon which heavy reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant Board. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration two other relevant circumstances, viz. an identical situation where the person has been granted the benefit of second higher grade and, secondly, a circular dated 5.9.2008 issued by the Board categorizing the classes of penalty into major and minor. On the basis of the same material, when a view is taken by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to disturb the findings in absence of any other distinguishing circumstance. 11. Having perused the penalty order, it appears that the Member Secretary of the Board, being the Appellate Authority, has modified the order of penalty and inflicted a penalty to the extent of stoppage of one increment without future effect and only for a period of six months. If that is the status of penalty and the circular issued by the same Board which has been taken care of by learned Single Judge who has opined that this penalty is to be treated as a minor penalty, we are not inclined to take a different view in the absence of other distinguishing circumstance. If that is the status of penalty and the circular issued by the same Board which has been taken care of by learned Single Judge who has opined that this penalty is to be treated as a minor penalty, we are not inclined to take a different view in the absence of other distinguishing circumstance. We see no perversity nor any irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Additionally, our attention is drawn to another order dated 15.9.2018, reflected on page 31 of the petition compilation, which undisputedly indicates that in case of one employee of this very appellant Board, i.e. Shri B.G. Makwana. He was also faced with similar situation and has been extended the benefit of second higher pay scale on the completion of 24 years’ service, which is an order dated 15.9.2018 passed by the appellant Board. This order is not in dispute and Mr. Munshaw is not in a position to explain about such discriminatory treatment being meted out to the petitioner. Resultantly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. Further, on a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that a reference has been made to a circular dated 5.9.2008, which has categorized the penalties into minor and major. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge as contained in para 5, 5.1 to 6 read as under:- “5. Thus, the impugned decision is rested on the condition No. 4(b) of the resolution dated 15.9.2015 of the Finance Department, which provided that in a case where the government servant is imposed with the major penalty at the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, in such eventuality the higher pay scale will not be granted to him. As the petitioner was imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect for six months, it was treated as major penalty to deny the petitioner the benefit of higher pay scale. 5.1 This court in Sultanaben Bavudinabhai Kazi vs. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board being Special Civil Application 14668 of 2018 dealt with a case where the facts were quite akin to the facts of the present one. 5.1 This court in Sultanaben Bavudinabhai Kazi vs. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board being Special Civil Application 14668 of 2018 dealt with a case where the facts were quite akin to the facts of the present one. In that case, the petitioner was visited with similar penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect pursuant to the departmental proceedings and based upon that the second higher pay scale was denied to him the respondents had relied on the same condition No. 4(b) of the Resolution dated 15.9.2015 and had further relied on the circular dated 5.9.2008 of the respondent board which categorisased class of penalty into minor and major. 5.2 In Sultanaben Bavudinabhai Kazi (supra), it was observed and held that there was a total misreading of the condition by the respondents. 5.3 The circular categorizes the classes of penalties as minor penalties and major penalties. The withholding of next increment without future effect as well as withholding of next increment with future effect, both are treated as minor penalties. Therefore, it is entirely erroneous and misleading on part of the respondents to contend that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was a major penalty as contemplated in the circular. The penalty of stoppage of increment without future effect is a minor penalty as per circular dated 5.9.2008 itself. It could not be treated as major penalty to raise the case that the petitioner would be disentitled to receive the second higher pay scale in view of the condition No. 40(b) of the Resolution dated 15.9.2015, which mentions the ground of a major penalty to render the government employee disentitled to receive the higher pay scale. 6. In addition to the above, as per the above undisputed dates, the petitioner became entitled to the second higher pay scale on 23.3.2012. Resolution dated 15.9.2015 was not in existence much less in force on the date when the petitioner became entitled to second higher pay scale. The resolution on which the respondents places reliance is subsequent in point of time, therefore could not have been applied in the case of the petitioner.” 14. Resolution dated 15.9.2015 was not in existence much less in force on the date when the petitioner became entitled to second higher pay scale. The resolution on which the respondents places reliance is subsequent in point of time, therefore could not have been applied in the case of the petitioner.” 14. It was rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner undisputedly became entitled to second higher pay scale as on 23.3.2012, whereas the resolution tried to be pressed into service is from 15.9.2015, i.e. at a much later point of time, and having no retrospective effect at all. With that being so, it is erroneous on the part of the appellant Board to apply such clauses having no applicability at all. The learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated this aspect of the matter. Resultantly, no case is made out by the appellant Board to call for any interference. 15. Additionally, the Apex Court in the case of Management of Narendra and Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340 , has laid down the proposition to deal with the Letters Patent Appeal while examining the order passed by learned single Judge. 16. In view of the aforesaid situation, which is prevailing on record, and on overall consideration of the material as well as the reasons assigned by learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that no case has been made out by the appellate Board that may call for any interference. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed hereby. 17. Since the main appeal is dismissed, connected Civil Application also stands dismissed hereby.