Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 4 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Dahyabhai Kalabhai Vala

2020-01-06

A.J.SHASTRI, VIKRAM NATH

body2020
ORDER : 1. The present group of Letters Patent Appeals, are arising out of a common question of law and facts challenging the respective orders passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petitions. Hence, the learned counsels appearing for both the sides have requested the Court to deal with and decide this group of Letters Patent Appeals by a common judgment and order. Resultantly, we have treated the Letters Patent Appeal No. 16 of 2020 as a lead matter to govern the ultimate outcome in all the Letters Patent Appeals. 2. This lead Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of Special Civil Application No. 1271 of 2013, where the original petitioner has asserted that he was appointed as the Khadi Sayojak at Bhavnagar Jilla Sarvodaya Yojna, Valrukad. The said post of Khadi Karyakar was attached with an initial pay scale of Rs. 170-250, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 300-560 by a Government Resolution issued by the Panchayat, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 17.5.1978. The aforesaid Sarvodaya Yojna was closed with effect from 31.8.1981 and the services of the petitioner came to be absorbed with the same post with the same pay scale and allowances but without any promotion, retirement benefits. To that effect, an order came to be issued by the Taluka Development officer, Palitana on 4.9.1981. On account of several representations, the Government has come out with a resolution date 15.12.1987, absorbing the petitioner and several other similarly situated employees. However, the petitioner’s original post of Khadi Karyakar was reverted to that of a Junior Clerk and as per the stand of the respondent authority, i.e. the present appellant, the services of the petitioner is to be counted and calculated with effect from 1.4.1987. It is the case of the original petitioner-respondent herein that the District Development Officer, Bhavnagar has passed an order on 13.1.1988 reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk from the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. The respondent authority, i.e. the present appellant, has treated the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1987 for pensionary benefits. Although his initial appointment was made with effect from 1.11.1979, the actual retirement dues have been calculated with effect from 1.4.1987 at a pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 at the post of a Junior Clerk. 950-1500. The respondent authority, i.e. the present appellant, has treated the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1987 for pensionary benefits. Although his initial appointment was made with effect from 1.11.1979, the actual retirement dues have been calculated with effect from 1.4.1987 at a pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 at the post of a Junior Clerk. On account of such injustice being meted out to the petitioner, he originally approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 1378 of 2011, and the petition came up for consideration on 8.2.2011, wherein it was directed that if a representation has been made by the petitioner, the same should be expeditiously dealt with preferably within a period of three months. After the said order was passed by this Court on 8.2.2011, the appellant herein, i.e. original respondent, calculated the petitioner’s services while including the initial years and gave pensionary benefits from the initial appointment at the Sarvodaya Yojna and the 4th and 5th pay scales from 1.9.1981. Though the petitioner was entitled to first and second higher pay scale from 1.9.1990 and 1.9.2005 respectively, a resolution came to passed on 12.6.2012. By virtue of this resolution, a decision was taken that since the initial service was in the Sarvodaya Yojna, which had been discontinued, on account of which the employees have become surplus, their previous service is not to be taken into consideration for the higher pay scale. Even the services rendered by the employees as ex-cadre in the District Panchayat is not to be considered. An instruction was passed on to calculate 9 years’ service from 1.4.1987, the period from when the employees were absorbed in the Panchayat services and the employees serving in the erstwhile Sarvodaya Yojna are to be treated thus. Since the decision taken by the appellant authority was found not to be just and proper and had the effect of recovery to some extent from the employees of the erstwhile Sarvodaya Yojna, the petitioner along with other employees have rushed to this Court by way of the present petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 1271 of 2013, seeking the following reliefs:- “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO, admit and allow this petition. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO, quashed and set aside G.R. Dated 12.06.2012 which was passed by the respondent 1 here in marked as annexure-F to this petition. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO, quashed and set aside G.R. Dated 12.06.2012 which was passed by the respondent 1 here in marked as annexure-F to this petition. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO, issue any writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent would not be recover any amount from the said petitioner about his 1st higher pay scale and 2nd higher pay scale be granted from dated 01.09.2005 as well as arrears which was given to the petitioner earlier. (D)..............” 3. The said writ petition came for consideration before the learned Single Judge, where the appellant authority has submitted an affidavit in reply, contesting the petition. The learned Single Judge heard the matter at length, as it appears, and by a detailed common order dated 3.8.2018, the group of petitions came to be allowed in terms of prayers 12(B) and 12(C). The resolution dated 12.6.2012 came to be set aside with a consequential direction to not recover any amount from the concerned petitioners. The operative part of the order contained in para 16, 17 and 18 are reproduced hereinafter:- “16. Therefore, the present group of petitions deserve to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. Prayer in terms of paragraph 12(B) and 12(C) is granted. The impugned Resolution dated 12.6.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside with a further direction that the amount of the higher pay scale may not be recovered and the petitioners’ case may be considered for grant of benefit of the higher pay scale as most of them have retired. 17. The decision shall be taken by the Respondent State within a period of three months for grant of higher pay scale as may be admissible on the basis of continuity of service counted from 1.9.1981. 18. The present group of petitions accordingly stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute.” It is this common order that has been made the subject matter of the present group of Letters Patent Appeals before us. 4. We have heard in common, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. D.M. Devnani appearing for the State-Appellant and learned senior counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, assisted by learned advocate Ms. Tejal Shah, appearing for the contesting respondents in all the appeals and learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the Panchayat authority. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. 4. We have heard in common, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. D.M. Devnani appearing for the State-Appellant and learned senior counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, assisted by learned advocate Ms. Tejal Shah, appearing for the contesting respondents in all the appeals and learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the Panchayat authority. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. D.M. Devnani has vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not just and proper in view of the fact that the scheme under which the original petitioners were working was not properly appreciated. Mr. Devnani has contended that in the old Bombay State in 1948, a scheme was introduced to uplift persons of backward class and for their overall development by selecting the backward areas on the basis of the ideology of Sarvodaya. After the establishment of the State of Gujarat, the said scheme, known as Sarvodaya Yojna, was continued by the State even after 1.5.1960. There were as many as 101 centers from the year 1979-1980. The centers were increased in numbers and under the Scheme, they were run on a 100% Government grant by the State of Gujarat. It is on account of the subsequent remarkable increase in the number of other benevolent schemes and due to dearth of dedicated and trained teachers that it was found by the State authority that it was not feasible to continue the scheme further. As a result of this, it was decided by notification dated 18.7.1980 to discontinue the scheme. On account of such discontinuance, several petitions came to be filed before this Court with a prayer to grant continuance, from which as many as 14 petitioners in the High Court came in the year 1980. On the satisfaction of the Court, a compromise took place between the parties to the proceedings. A series of meetings have taken place between the learned advocates of both the sides and, ultimately, as a part of compromise, a resolution was issued on 30.7.1981 whereby the services of the employees who were in Sarvodaya Scheme were decided to be continued, through the terms of the said Government Resolution with certain stipulations. These employees were placed under the control of the respective Taluka Development officer and the District Development Officer, as the case may be. These employees were placed under the control of the respective Taluka Development officer and the District Development Officer, as the case may be. The service conditions were also maintained as far as possible and the employees were to be posted within the district on feasible availability. The service conditions of these employees were governed by virtue of the resolution dated 28.1.1966 which came to be amended from time to time. It was decided that the part of the service by the employees rendered in the Sarvodaya Yojna is not to be considered as services for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. Thereby prior to the absorption in Panchayat, i.e. prior to 1981, these employees were a class apart, to be treated as Ex-cadre. These employees including the petitioners have worked as ex-cadre in the Panchayat till the year 1987. Therefore, looking at these peculiar circumstances, the original petitioners are not entitled to the service benefits for the years of service they rendered in the Sarvodaya Yojna. Learned Single Judge, according to Mr. Devnani, has not properly construed the relevant resolutions and passed the impugned order. Therefore, Mr. Devnani has requested to allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned order. 6. Leaned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Devnani has further submitted that since these ex-cadre employees were not serving on the post during the said period, and were absorbed in the Panchayat services only after resolution dated 15.12.1987, they will be entitled for a higher pay scale only after being regularly appointed with the Panchayat. Therefore granting the benefit of a higher pay scale by considering their past service is a clear example of the violation of the policy itself. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside. 7. Mr. Devnani has further submitted that these employees have undisputedly, not worked in the Panchayat from 1981. Since they were absorbed in the Panchayat later, for such period they are not entitled to seek any benefit. It has been contended that simply because their past tenure, i.e. the period in Sarvodaya Yojna is to be treated and counted for pensionary purpose, it would not automatically entitle them to seek the benefit of a higher pay scale. The same is distinguishable from being counted in the service for pensionary benefits. It has been contended that simply because their past tenure, i.e. the period in Sarvodaya Yojna is to be treated and counted for pensionary purpose, it would not automatically entitle them to seek the benefit of a higher pay scale. The same is distinguishable from being counted in the service for pensionary benefits. It has been contended that if this is allowed, there would be serious financial repercussion on the State exchequer. Hence, having accepted the terms of their absorption, they ought not to be permitted to resile it and claim the benefit, which is otherwise not amenable to them. Mr. Devnani has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has given undue weightage to some of the observations made by the earlier orders of this Court though the controversy therein was altogether different. Resultantly, the order impugned deserves be set aside. 8. Mr. Devnani has further submitted that the scheme of higher pay scale is governed by the specific resolution, which clearly indicates that such benefit is to be given to a regular Government employee. Looking at the status of the respondents- original petitioners, prior to absorption in the Panchayat services, the said period cannot be counted for the purpose of clubbing so as to give the benefit of higher pay scale. On the contrary, these ex-cadre employees absorbed in the Panchayat services, were absorbed under specific conditions. One of the said conditions was that they would not claim any benefit or right of tenure of service in the Sarvodaya Scheme. According to Mr. Devnani, specific undertakings were given by these employees. Resultantly, they are not entitled for any benefits from the said period. On the contrary, a bare reading of the Government Resolution dated 30.7.1981, when looked at length, indicates that this tenure is not to be treated for any other benefits. By inviting clause (5) of the said resolution, a reference is made to some of the clauses to indicate that these respondents-original petitioners, are not entitled for such benefits. The resolution upon which the claim is based is not applicable to the case of these persons. There is hardly any reason to apply the criteria meant for other class of employees. The order of the learned Single Judge is clearly erroneous and not in consonance with the policy of the higher pay scale. Hence the same is required to be set aside. 9. Mr. There is hardly any reason to apply the criteria meant for other class of employees. The order of the learned Single Judge is clearly erroneous and not in consonance with the policy of the higher pay scale. Hence the same is required to be set aside. 9. Mr. Devnani has submitted that these employees, i.e. respondents herein, had full knowledge and accepted their status as ex-cadre employees with open eyes. They also submitted undertakings to not claim any benefit other than those legitimately available. Hence, these respondents may not be allowed to encash the grace shown by the State, which would otherwise be granting undue premium. The sympathy shown by absorbing them in the Panchayat services is unduly capitalized. The learned Single Judge did not consider the same in a right perspective, hence, the impugned order is required to be set aside. 10. After referring to a few translated versions of the resolutions, a contention was reiterated and submitted that the first higher grade would be available to this class of employees only after completion of nine years with effect from 1.4.1987 and not before that. Resultantly, Mr. Devnani has requested to allow the appeals. No other submissions have been made. 11. To meet the stand taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Devnani, learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta, appearing on behalf of the respective employees-contesting respondents has contended that the State would act as a model employer and cannot discriminate with this class of employees from being treated differently. Earlier the tenure under the scheme was run on 100% aid by the State Government itself. Considering the closure of the scheme, these employees had been absorbed in Panchayat in the same pay scale with the same status. Now, after a long tenure at the fag-end, the Government cannot deprive these employees of granting the benefit of higher pay scale, which is otherwise available to the class of employees of the State authority. Mr. Mehta has contended that in the past as well, this Court was confronted with the situation as to whether the employees’ services prior to absorption period is to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits as continuous service or not. There as well a similar stand was taken by the State authority, to deprive such benefits. Mr. Mehta has contended that in the past as well, this Court was confronted with the situation as to whether the employees’ services prior to absorption period is to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits as continuous service or not. There as well a similar stand was taken by the State authority, to deprive such benefits. In that group of petitions as well, the Court had ordered to consider the said period, i.e. the period prior to absorption in the Panchayat as a continuous service for pensionary benefits. All those persons were accorded such benefits. On the contrary, according to learned senior counsel, in an identical situation, similarly situated persons were given the benefit. By referring to page 104 of the original petition compilation, an example is given that those persons were given the due benefits of a higher grade. Therefore there is no other earthly reason for the State authority to take a different stand in the present matter. It has been contended that the State, being the model employer, is under an obligation to give similar treatment to all and now cannot rely upon the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1987 to deny similar benefits since these petitioners, i.e. the respondents herein, were not party to the said proceedings. Mr. Mehta has further pointed out, through reference to the decision delivered in Special Civil Application No. 14642 of 2003 and has contended that the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994 will not have any application in the present background. Resultantly, a request is made to dismiss the Letters Patent Appeals. 12. Mr. Mehta has further submitted that there are a large number of decisions delivered by this Court in almost similar set of circumstance. The learned Single Judge had considered these and there no other better material has been produced or canvassed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in the present proceedings to take a different view. It has been submitted that a literal meaning of ex-cadre, if to be looked into, would abundantly make it clear that the period for which they have rendered their services, has to be counted. Various resolutions have been brought before us by the learned senior counsel, namely the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, 2.7.2007 as well as the circular issued by the Government dated 30.7.1981, including one other Government Resolution dated 15.12.1987. Various resolutions have been brought before us by the learned senior counsel, namely the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, 2.7.2007 as well as the circular issued by the Government dated 30.7.1981, including one other Government Resolution dated 15.12.1987. By referring to these, it has been contended that the learned Single Judge has taken a justifiable view by extending the benefits. The impugned resolution, since, has caused an effect of creating discrimination amongst the employees and the same has been rightly set aside by this Court, i.e. the resolution dated 12.6.2012. 13. Mr. Mehta has further submitted that on the basis of the same material and interpretation of the aforesaid resolutions, a specific view has been taken by the learned Single Judge by assigning cogent reasons. In the absence of any better material or different submissions, the view is normally not substituted in an appeal, particularly when there is no apparent error or illegality nor any perversity is reflected in the detailed order. That being the position, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has requested the Court to dismiss Letters Patent Appeals by confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record placed before us, we may observe from the impugned order, in the Letters Patent Appeals, was passed at length by the learned Single Judge after considering all the Government Resolutions and the circulars pressed during the course of hearing. Further, following a careful analysis of the said regulations, a view is taken which in any form cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. The order impugned prima facie does not reflect any irregularity. 15. Apart from this, even if we independently look at the controversy generated, a bare look at the very scheme floated way back in the year 1948, if observed, shows that the same was aimed to uplift persons of backward class and overall developments of selected backward areas on the basis of the Sarvodaya ideology. This benevolent scheme appears to have been continued for a pretty long period, even after the establishment of the State of Gujarat on 1.5.1960. This benevolent scheme appears to have been continued for a pretty long period, even after the establishment of the State of Gujarat on 1.5.1960. We have perused that these centers where the scheme was run were increased to the extent of 101 centers over a period of time and this Scheme was with the support of a 100% Government grant from the State of Gujarat. Therefore, this was a limb of the State, where these original petitioners worked. We have also seen from the record that the controversy here is with regard to the issue of whether these employees’ services prior to their absorption in the Panchayat services can be counted as continuous service for pensionary benefits or not. The issue which confronted in the past, around the year 1996, has been dealt with in a group of petitions. It was observed by this Court in a judgment delivered in Special Civil Application No. 1696 of 1997 and allied matters, which is deemed proper to reproduce hereinafter:- “3. The contention of the petitioner is that initially there was a scheme originally called as “Sarvodaya Yojna and each of them were employed for the activities of scheme. Undisputedly Sarvodaya Yojna had Government sponsorship. It is inter alia contended that there services in the Sarvodaya Yojna should be taken into account and will be considered as continuous service under the respondent-District Panchayat. 7.........The State is directed to consider the services rendered by present petitioners from their initial date of appointment when they were absorbed in the Panchayat cadre i.e. from the year 1980-81 till the date of retirement or otherwise for pensionary benefits as continuous service. Further, it is observed that this period should be treated to grant pensionary benefit only and they will not be entitled to claim any cash or other financial benefit. I am told that the present petitioner were given other benefits like leave et. For their earlier services with Sarvodaya scheme.” 16. We have found it very curious to see that in this case, the stand of State in considering pensionary benefits, this past tenure is considered as continuous service, whereas for grant of other benefits, the same is not to be counted. The submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is found to be illogical and irrational, and hence, it is not possible for us to accept it. 17. The submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is found to be illogical and irrational, and hence, it is not possible for us to accept it. 17. We have also seen the decision delivered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14642 of 2003, decided by the Court vide order dated 19.4.2004. There also the observations made are sufficient to indicate that no illegality was committed by the learned Single Judge in relying upon it. On the contrary, in the said decision, it was categorically observed that the stand taken by the authority with regard to the undertakings given by the petitioners cannot be accepted to their disadvantageous position. The same was found to be absolutely unjust and improper. Now, that order has attained finality. As stated before us, and in another identical situation, another Bench delivered a decision on 16.10.2001 in Special Civil Application No. 1696 of 1996. The effect of this was also appropriately considered and dealt with by the learned Single Judge. We see no infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Detailed observations made by the learned Single Judge in considering the grievance, have been found to be just and proper. We deem it proper to reproduce the said conclusion relevant hereinafter:- “11. As could be seen from the background of the facts, the petitioners were appointed in Sarvodaya Yojna, which was closed w.e.f. 31.8.1981. Thereafter, pursuant to the earlier litigation the similarly situated persons who had preferred SCA 1696/1996 and the allied group of matters were allowed by the High Court (Coram: C.K. Buch, J.) vide judgment and order dated 16.10.2001. The fact remains that the persons like the petitioners were taken in panchayat services but they were not initially absorbed and ultimately they were absorbed w.e.f. 1.4.1987. Therefore, the persons like the petitioners had approached the High Court by way of SCA 14642/2003 and the High Court (Coram: Akshay Mehta, J.) vide judgment and order dated 19.4.2004 quashed and set aside the Resolution dated 15.12.1987 with an observation that the employees who were compelled to give an undertaking in terms of Resolution dated 15.12.1987 with regard to the absorption on the post having lower pay scale would not be justified and therefore directions were given to put them in the pay scale with continuity of service. It has been observed: “However, this Court allowed the petitions and directed the respondents that such service should also be taken on the record. Thus this Court has consistently taken view to the effect that the respondents could not compel the ex-cadre employees under the Scheme on the basis of the undertaking which was obtained from them in accordance with the term of the Resolution dated 15th December 1987. If that be so, in the present case also, the stand taken by the respondents with regard to the undertaking given by the petitioners cannot be accepted. When the petitioners have been put in disadvantageous position, it was absolutely, unjust, improper on the part of the respondents to extract an undertaking from them.” 12. Similarly, in earlier petition being SCA 1696/1997 the High Court (Coram: C.K. Buch, J.) vide judgment and order dated 16.10.2001 has considered the same issue and has made the observations that the persons like the petitioners who were surplus due to the closer of the Sarvodaya Yojna could be accommodated elsewhere in panchayat service and the undertaking should not be insisted upon. It is in these background the Resolution issued by Panchayat Housing and Urban Development Department, Gujarat State dated 30.7.1981 is required to be considered. In the said Resolution, it has been specifically stated that on closer of the scheme, the employees and the Teachers were ordered to be absorbed during the course of the court proceedings. Therefore, the aforesaid Resolution came to be issued and in this Resolution itself it has been observed that those employees who have completed one year of service as on 31.8.1981 may be absorbed in the panchayat service as ex-cadre employees. Meaning thereby they were ordered to be absorbed in the services. Thereafter, another Resolution dated 26.7.2005 came to be issued in light of the judgment and order of the High Court as stated above specifically taking note of the fact that the undertaking has not been believed or accepted by the High Court and it has also been stated that in some cases the benefit of continuity of service for the purpose of pension has been granted. It is in these background the submissions which have been made by the learned AGP referring to the further affidavit-in-reply that the judgment of the High Court in SCA 1696/1996 is misread and the court had directed the government to consider the case only for the purpose of pension. Meaning thereby the benefit of higher pay scale was not covered and therefore it may not have any application is required to be considered. At the same time, as it appears the government has issued a circular dated 30.7.1981 for the employees of the Sarvodaya Yojna who have been absorbed as an ex-cadre employees of the panchayat. Therefore, the Government Resolutions dated 16.8.1994 and 2.7.2007 have to be road in the background of the facts. The GR dated 16.8.1994 has a reference to provide the benefit of higher pay scale to the employees who had limited chances of promotion and the reference is made in Clause 3(15) that the services rendered previously in other departments shall not be counted. Similarly, GR dated 2.7.2007 has a reference to providing a benefit of higher pay scale, where also, the reference is made to the GR dated 16.8.1994 of the Finance Department and for the purpose of granting the benefit of 12 years and 24 years benefit the services of the surplus employees in previous departments would not be considered. However, these are the Resolutions worked out for the purpose of providing benefit to the employees in general as a matter of policy. However, in the facts of the case, on closer of the Sarvodaya Yojna when the persons like the petitioners have been directed to be absorbed in pancayat service as an ex-cadre and when they have been rendering the service since 1981, there is no justification for not counting such services for the purpose of benefit of the higher pay scale particularly when the GR dated 15.12.1987 has been quashed and set aside. 13. The submissions which have been made that the benefit could be considered only from the date of actual absorption in the panchayat service in 1987 and the certificates rendered earlier should not be reckoned is misconceived for the simple reason that though the order of absorption may have been in 1987, the fact remains that they have been absorbed in the panchayat service effectively from 1981 and have been rendering the services. Therefore, the continuity of such service for the purpose of granting the benefit of the higher pay scale cannot be denied and it would not justify to refuse such benefit though such persons like the petitioners have been absorbed with the panchayat service and have been working there since 1981 or prior thereto. 14. The submission that the date of absorption should be the date on which they could be said to have born in the cadre has to be considered in peculiar facts of the case that they have been absorbed as an ex-cadre employee since 1981 or prior thereto. Therefore it is not the seniority but only for the purpose of benefit of higher pay scale, such services rendered by the persons like the petitioners cannot be ignored or overlooked. 15. It is in these circumstances, the observations which have been made and which have been relied upon in the earlier orders of the High Court could not be distinguished in the manner canvassed. The emphasis on the specific observation that the order of the High Court in SCA 1696/1996 was with regard to counting the continuity of service in case of the employees for the benefit of pension and it could not be counted for the purpose of higher pay scale or the financial benefit cannot be accepted. Therefore, when such services rendered with the panchayat after the absorption in the year 1981 or prior thereto could be considered for the purpose of pension, there is no justification for not considering the same for the other financial benefits. It is required to be stated that the GR dated 15.12.1987 has been set aside with specific observation that such undertakings given by the respective employees will not have any application. Therefore such services rendered by the employees cannot be ignored.” 18. In light of the aforesaid situation, prevailing on the record, in a perusal of the stand of the Government in the affidavit-in-reply, reflecting on page 32, if to be considered, the said stand is found to be vague and not possible to be accepted. A brief affidavit-in-reply is submitted in which, it is asserted that their service tenure has been counted firstly for nine years after 1.4.1987 without any justification. A brief affidavit-in-reply is submitted in which, it is asserted that their service tenure has been counted firstly for nine years after 1.4.1987 without any justification. Even independently, we are not in a position to take a different view since the State has not come out succinctly and has tried to bank upon the very same submissions which have been canvassed before and considered by the learned Single Judge. 19. Even in the recent decision delivered on 7.12.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 15970 of 2017, relied upon by another learned Single Judge in a decision dated 13.3.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 3931 of 2019, a perusal suggests clearly that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. 20. So far as the stand regarding depriving the original petitioners from the benefit of a higher pay scale/grade by treating them to be ex-cadre is concerned, we may look at the object of the scheme of the higher grade scale, pronounced by the Government of Gujarat, vide Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994. The ultimate aim is not to create a different class, rather to see that the employees who may not have a chance of further promotion and may be stagnated at the pay at a maximum stage, on account of such lack of promotional avenues are provided for with this higher grade scale in accepting the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission. Undoubtedly, these are the respondents who had been in services under the scheme floated and maintained on a 100% grant by the State Government, absorbed in Panchayat services on the same pay scale and posts. It is highly illogical to count their past services for pensionary benefits but not to count for higher pay scale, especially when these employees have actually worked. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the extension of such benefit appears to have been rightly granted by the learned Single Judge by looking at past judgments, also referred above. 21. Further, we may also observe that in the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1987 brought before us, clause (8) clearly indicates that these ex-cadre employees were to be absorbed in the respective District Panchayats in the vacant posts. If the posts are not vacant, instructions were passed to create supernumerary posts in the same pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. 21. Further, we may also observe that in the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1987 brought before us, clause (8) clearly indicates that these ex-cadre employees were to be absorbed in the respective District Panchayats in the vacant posts. If the posts are not vacant, instructions were passed to create supernumerary posts in the same pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. It is not possible to digest that they are to be treated differently simply because they have been ex-cadre employees. 22. One additional issue attempted to be raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader was that the surplus employees are not entitled to the benefits of higher pay scale. Here, we are not in a position to accept this stand of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The specific contention raised by the appellant is that the employees have not been declared as surplus; on the contrary they have been absorbed in the aforesaid manner. Clause 3/15 which was relied upon, reflected in the resolution placed before us in the translated compilation on internal page 26, reads as under:- “3(15) The service of surplus employee due to discontinuance of posts in the department/ office in the former department/office shall not be taken into account.” 23. This is a lame excuse which has been attempted to be projected; the service of surplus employees shall not be taken into consideration is not well supported by any of the documentary evidence. There is nothing on record to suggest that the specific order declaring them as surplus is passed by the authority. Therefore, this is another additional factor which cannot be left unnoticed by us. The appellant authority has miserably failed in making out even a prime facie case which can permit us to take a different view. 24. Another circular dated 21.6.2012, is a clarification. As per Clause 3/15 of the Government Resolution dated 16.8.1994, as referred to above, and as per clause 2(11) of the Government Resolution dated 2.7.2007 of the Finance Department, the service of the surplus employees due to non-availability of the posts put in earlier Department cannot be considered. It has no legs to stand on, in view of the fact that these very circulars, i.e. circular dated 16.8.1994, as well as 2.7.2007 have been conjointly read and the benefits have been made available to several employees earlier. It has no legs to stand on, in view of the fact that these very circulars, i.e. circular dated 16.8.1994, as well as 2.7.2007 have been conjointly read and the benefits have been made available to several employees earlier. In view of this, there seems to be no justification in the stand taken by learned Assistant Government Pleader. 25. In the wake of the aforesaid situation, and the circumstances examined by the learned Single Judge and independently by us, we see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. Every aspect has been appropriately dealt with. There seems to be no perversity or material irregularity of any nature. That being the position, we are not inclined to substitute the view taken by learned Single Judge. 26. At this stage, we refer to the relevant proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of exercising the appellate jurisdiction. It has been clearly spelt out by the Apex Court that “Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on the relief.” Considering the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Management of Narendra and Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340 , contained in para 5, we are not inclined to exercise our appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeals, being merit-less, are dismissed with no orders to costs. 27. Since the group of appeals is dismissed, the respective Civil Applications are also dismissed hereby. 28. At this stage, we may appropriately direct the appellant- State authority to give effect to the present order by taking appropriate decision within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.