JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him senior pay scale of Rs.4500-5700/- w.e.f. 01.05.1986 and to fix his pay in this Scale notionally till 16.10.1994 and to pay arrears of salary w.e.f. 17.10.1994 with the interest @ 9% p.a. from 17.10.1994 till actual payment. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer Class-II w.e.f. 11.09.1973 initially on ad hoc basis and was subsequently appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 12.09.1974. The State Government issued the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1994 promulgating the scheme of time-bound promotion and also for granting the senior scale to the inservice doctors like the petitioner. 2.2 There were two categories of employees, who were considered for time-bound promotion a) General Duty Medical Officers and b) Special Cadres. As far as the Special Cadres are concerned, two(2) sub-provisions are made (a) All those Medical Postgraduates, who are being appointed in the payscale of Rs.3000-4500/- are to be treated as Specialist Grade-II and (b) a person, who has put in six(6) years of regular service in the scale of Rs.3000-4500/- is to be treated as eligible for promotion to the senior scale of Rs.4500-570/- with the condition that the number of such senior scale posts will be 50% of the total sanctioned posts of Specialist Grade-II. Thereafter, the Government issued the clarificatory resolution dated 15.10.1997. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that since he is a Post Graduate having a degree of M.B.B.S. and Diploma in Tuberculosis Diseases (T.D.D.) and was selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission as Class-I and payscale of his post was Rs.3000-4500/- under the provision of Revision of Pay Rules, 1987 effective from 01.01.1986 and hence, he is to be treated as Specialist Grade-II of the Specialist Cadres as per the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1994. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas has submitted that since the petitioner has completed six(6) years of the regular service as a Specialist Grade-II as on 01.05.1986, he is entitled to the senior payscale of Rs.4500-570/- from such date. He has submitted that according to the clarification made in the Government Resolution dated 13.01.1995, he would be eligible to such pay fixed in the senior scale notionally from 01.05.1986 to 16.10.1994 without the benefit of arrears. He has submitted that according to the clarification made in the Government Resolution dated 13.01.1995, he would be eligible to such pay fixed in the senior scale notionally from 01.05.1986 to 16.10.1994 without the benefit of arrears. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Vyas has submitted that since his juniors have already been afforded the aforesaid benefits, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. He has submitted that the petitioner satisfies the criterion of seniority-cum-fitness and hence, he is entitled for the aforesaid senior payscale. He has submitted that in fact, the respondent authorities have misread the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1997 and the benefit of seniority scale has been illegally denied to him as he has completed six(6) years on regular service on the post of Specialist Grade-II from 01.05.1986. 3.2 Learned advocate has finally submitted that the impugned communication dated 29.07.2004 required to be set aside as the benefit of seniority scale has been denied on the basis of the adverse remarks, which were communicated to the petitioner for the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1994-95. Thus, he has submitted that the respondents may be directed to grant the benefits of senior scale to the petitioner. 3.3 Learned advocate has placed reliance on the order dated 20.07.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.12033 of 2014 in support of his submissions and has submitted that in fact all the petitioners therein, were granted such benefits and hence, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of 01.01.1986, he has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1469 of 2015, wherein the benefits of Tiku Pay Commission has been extended to the Medical Officer w.e.f. 04.09.1991. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal has submitted that the benefit of Tiku Pay Commission was introduced by the State Government, which pertains to the grant of promotion as well as senior payscale vide Government Resolution dared 17.10.1994. He has submitted that subsequently, there was discrepancies noticed by the State Government in implementing the said scheme hence, the State Government issued the clarificatory resolution dated 15.10.1997, whereby it was decided that such benefits arising out of the scheme will be given effect from 14.11.1991 to the Medical Officer working under the Health and Family Welfare Department. He has submitted that subsequently, there was discrepancies noticed by the State Government in implementing the said scheme hence, the State Government issued the clarificatory resolution dated 15.10.1997, whereby it was decided that such benefits arising out of the scheme will be given effect from 14.11.1991 to the Medical Officer working under the Health and Family Welfare Department. He has submitted that specific cut off date has been provided that the said scheme will be given effect from 14.11.1991 hence, the petitioner cannot be granted the senior scale of Rs.4500-570/- w.e.f. 01.05.1986. He has further submitted that the criterion for granting the promotion and senior scale is that “such benefits are only granted to those employees, who have not been communicated any adverse remarks in the Confidential Report in preceding five(5) years of service.” He as submitted that the petitioner was communicated the adverse remarks in his Confidential Reports for the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1994-95 and the representation made by the petitioner on such adverse remarks was rejected and hence, the same have become final. Upon instructions of the concerned authorities, pursuant to the order passed by this court dated 02.04.2019, he has submitted that in fact no juniors to the petitioner are granted the benefits w.e.f. 01.05.1986 as claimed by the petitioner. 4.1 With regard to the reliance placed on the judgment by the learned advocate Mr.Vyas, Learned AGP has submitted that the issue raised before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1469 of 2015 is entirely different since the Officer in that case was suffering from permanent disability due to paralysis and he wanted to take voluntary retirement and hence, the same would not apply in the case of the petitioner. Thus, he has submitted that looking to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1997, the Medical Offices are entitled for the benefits w.e.f. 14.11.1991 and not from 01.01.1986. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 6. The issue raised in the writ petition hinges on the interpretation of the clarificatory Government Resolution dated 15.10.1997 issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare. The State Government promulgated the scheme known as Tiku Pay Commission vide Government Resolution dated 17.10.1994 conferring the benefits of promotion to the Medical Officers and also the benefit of senior scale / higher payscale of Rs.4500-570/- . The State Government promulgated the scheme known as Tiku Pay Commission vide Government Resolution dated 17.10.1994 conferring the benefits of promotion to the Medical Officers and also the benefit of senior scale / higher payscale of Rs.4500-570/- . Since there were discrepancies noticed in the implementation of the said scheme, the State Government issued the resolution dated 15.10.1997 clarifying the resolution dated 17.10.1994. 7. A perusal of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1997 reveals that the benefit of Tiku Pay Commission is to be conferred w.e.f. 14.11.1991 and the pay is required to be fixed on the basis of the payscale prevalent at that time i.e. payscale as on 01.01.1986. Thus, the said resolution has clarified that the pay is to be fixed on the basis of payscale prevailing as on 01.01.1986, but the same does not indicate that actual benefit of Tiku Pay Commission is to be conferred from 01.01.1986. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of senior scale w.e.f. 01.05.1986. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same would be misreading of the clause of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1997. The resolution specifically prescribes that the pay is to be fixed from 14.11.1991 and not from 01.01.1986. 8. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was conveyed the adverse remarks in his Confidential Report for the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1994-95 and such entries have also become final. It is also admitted that for considering a person for promotion or higher payscale, his Confidential Reports of the preceding five(5) years also to be taken into consideration and all of them must be satisfactory. The scheme itself was introduced under the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1994 and hence, preceding five(5) years Confidential Reports are also required to be considered before granting the benefit of Tiku Pay Commission. 9. In the present case, the petitioner was communicated the adverse remarks for the preceding three(3) years and hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of senior payscale from the date as claimed by him i.e. 01.05.1986. 10. 9. In the present case, the petitioner was communicated the adverse remarks for the preceding three(3) years and hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of senior payscale from the date as claimed by him i.e. 01.05.1986. 10. Thus, even if the facts as incorporated by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 16.01.2017 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1469 of 2015 granting benefit of higher payscale / selection grade from 04.09.1991 is considered, then also the petitioner will not be entitled to the higher payscale from 01.05.1986 as claimed since the scheme is implemented from 1991 and no retrospective effect has been given, and the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1997 clarifies that such pay fixation is to be made on the basis of the payscale prevailing as on 01.01.1986. 11. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition fails. Rule is discharged.