JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The petitioners are praying for the benefit of higher pay-scale in the grade pay of Rs. 5000-8000. The petitioners have improved their case by way of filing additional affidavit in which they are claiming benefit of grade pay of Rs. 5500-9000 as per the Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991. 2. The petitioners were working as the employees of Malaria Department and from the record, it is revealed that they have retired from service on 31.07.2008, 31.03.2008 and 30.09.2009 respectively. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 25.02.1976, the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 01.09.1973 and the petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 27.02.1976. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 from the relevant date of eligibility. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Paneri appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of first higher pay-scale on completion of 9 years of service, second higher pay-scale on completion of 18 years of service and third higher pay-scale on completion of 27 years of service. It is a case of the petitioners that they were given first higher pay-scale on completion of almost 11 years of service in the year 1987 and, thereafter, the second and third higher pay-scale have not yet been granted. 4.1 Further reliance is placed by the learned advocate Mr. Paneri on the averments made in paragraph No. 9 of the petition and has submitted that the following employees of the Department, i.e. Mr. J.U. Jani, Mr. D.B. Raval and Mr. Makwana, working as Vaccinator and Laboratory Technician are getting higher pay-scale in the grade pay of Rs. 5000-8000 after completion of 27 years of service but the petitioners have not been granted the said pay-scale though the petitioners too have completed 27 years of service. He has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to higher pay scale as per the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Paneri has further submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioners are conferred the benefits of second higher pay-scale after completion of 24 years of service in view of the Resolution dated 02.07.2007. He has submitted that in fact the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of higher pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Paneri has further submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioners are conferred the benefits of second higher pay-scale after completion of 24 years of service in view of the Resolution dated 02.07.2007. He has submitted that in fact the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of higher pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Hathi appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 has submitted that the writ petition is misconceived as the petitioners are already conferred of second higher pay-scale. She has submitted that a specific statement has been made on 13.06.2017, wherein it is stated that the petitioners have been conferred first and second higher pay-scale during the service tenure on 01.09.1987 and 01.06.2002 respectively. She has submitted that all the three petitioners have retired with the basic pay of Rs. 6,215/- Rs. 6,125/- and Rs. 6,250/- respectively in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and since none of the petitioners have reached to the maximum pay of Rs. 7,000/- in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 during their service tenure, they are not entitled to third higher pay-scale. She has submitted that the petitioners are conferred the benefit of first and second higher pay-scale in view of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. She has placed reliance on the provisions of paragraph No. 3 of the Resolution dated 16.08.1994. Thus, she has submitted that the writ petition may not be entertained. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. In the present writ petition, the petitioners are claiming the higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 from the relevant date of eligibility, however, the writ petition is bereft of such date. From the record, it is noticed that in affidavit-in-reply, a specific statement has been made by the respondent No. 5 that the petitioners have conferred the first and second higher pay-scale during their service tenure on 01.09.1987 and 01.06.2002 respectively. All the petitioners have retired. The petitioner No. 1 has retired on 31.07.2008 with the basic pay of Rs. 6,215/- the petitioner No. 2 has retired on 31.03.2008 with the basic pay of Rs. 6,125/- and the petitioner No. 3 has retired on 30.09.2009 with the basic pay of Rs. 6,250/- in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000. The petitioners are claiming higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 after conferring of 27 years of service. 8. 6,215/- the petitioner No. 2 has retired on 31.03.2008 with the basic pay of Rs. 6,125/- and the petitioner No. 3 has retired on 30.09.2009 with the basic pay of Rs. 6,250/- in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000. The petitioners are claiming higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000 after conferring of 27 years of service. 8. It is a case of the petitioners that similarly situated employees are conferred the benefits of higher pay scale and reliance is placed on the employees working as vaccinators and laboratory technicians. The petitioners are not working as the laboratory technicians or the vaccinators but they were working as multipurpose workers and the entire cadres and posts are different. Thus, they cannot compare their case with such employees, who do not belong to their cadres. 9. A specific averment has been made in the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent No. 5 about granting of two higher pay-scales to them and it is specifically averred that since none of the petitioners have reached to the maximum pay of Rs. 7,000/- in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 during their service tenure, they cannot be granted the benefit of third higher pay-scale as per the provisions of Resolution dated 16.08.1994. The aforesaid statement is not controverted further by the petitioners. 10. The paragraph No. 3 of the Resolution dated 16.08.1994 prescribes that “those employees who have completed nine years of service in the same cadre as on 01.06.1987 or thereafter completes more years of service, will be entitled to first higher pay-scale, and even if an employee has completed more than nine years of service, i.e. 18/27 years as on 01.06.1987, then also the first higher pay-scale has to be granted from such date, whereas the second and third higher pay-scale has to be conferred after completion of 18 and 27 years of service from 01.06.1987 or if an employee has completed one year after reaching the maximum stage and has remained stagnated in the respective pay-scale of higher pay-scale or promotional grade, whichever is later.” Thus, there are two categories prescribed: (i) an employee who completes 18 and 27 years of service or (ii) he has remained stagnated for one year in the maximum stage in the same pay-scale of higher grade or promotional grade. The clause stipulates that he will only be entitled to higher pay-scale in one of the categories whichever is later. The clause stipulates that he will only be entitled to higher pay-scale in one of the categories whichever is later. Thus, the petitioners will be governed by the second category. Though they have completed 27 years of service, they are not entitled to higher pay-scale since they have not remained stagnated for one year after they have reached the maximum stage in their respective pay-scale. 11. In the present case, a statement made in the affidavit-in-reply is not denied and the petitioners are unable to show that they have reached the maximum pay of Rs. 7,000/- in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and have remained stagnated for one year in the said pay-scale and hence, in absence of such assurance by the petitioners, they cannot be conferred the third pay-scale after completion of 27 years of service. Thus, the petitioners have failed to satisfy the conditions of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 for the entitlement of the third higher pay-scale of service. The writ petition fails. Rule discharged.