ORDER : 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original respondent No. 4 in a writ application filed by the respondents herein (original writ applicants) and is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8th January 2020 in the Special Civil Application No. 28774 of 2007, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application filed by the respondents herein and directed the appellant herein to grant the first higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000 meant for the post of Head Clerk/Accountant. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under: 2.1 The original writ applicants, initially, came to be appointed as the Junior Clerks in the office of the appellant. The next promotional post is that of a Senior Clerk and from the post of Senior Clerk to a Head Clerk. 2.2 The writ applicants were serving as the Junior Clerks and upon completion of 9 years of service, they came to be granted the higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000. This, according to the appellant, was granted inadvertently as the higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000 is attached to the post of Head Clerk. The stance of the appellant is that the next promotional post is of Senior Clerk and the pay-scale attached to the post of Senior Clerk is 4,000-6,000. 2.3 It appears that the confusion arose due to the fact that there are no sanctioned post of Senior Clerk with the appellant. In such circumstances, straightway, the higher pay-scale attached to the post of Head Clerk came to be granted to the writ applicants. 3. In the aforesaid context, an objection came to be raised by the local fund office. Ultimately, the orders came to be passed withdrawing the pay-scale of 5,000-8,000 granted to the writ applicants. 4. The original writ applicants, being dissatisfied with the action on the part of the appellant in withdrawing the benefit of the first higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000, came before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No. 28774 of 2007 and prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Admit this petition. 4. The original writ applicants, being dissatisfied with the action on the part of the appellant in withdrawing the benefit of the first higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000, came before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No. 28774 of 2007 and prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Admit this petition. (B) Quash and set aside the order dated 04.05.2007 passed by the respondent No. 4 (Annexure-A) as well as order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-K) by declaring them as illegal, unjust, improper, contrary to GR dated 16.08.1994 and 05.07.1991 as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court as well as other High Courts from time to time by declaring that the petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the first higher pay-scale in the scale of Rs. 5,000- 8,000 for the post of Head Clerk cum Accountant in the Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samitiat Jamnagar run by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 4.5.2007 and 29.10.2007 by directing the respondents not to disturb the service conditions of the petitioner and pay and emoluments of the petitioners till the final disposal of the present petition. (D) Grant such other and further reliefs deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ application holding as under: “[8.0] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The established facts are that all the petitioners are working as Junior Clerks in the respondent Committee and they were appointed between the year 1974 to 1993. The petitioners have also cleared the departmental examination, which is meant for the promotion and accordingly after completion of 9 years of service, they were granted the higher pay-scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000. The aforesaid higher pay-scale was granted was of the post of post of Head Clerk cum Accountant as per the set up of the respondent No. 4 Committee. After the aforesaid higher pay-scale was granted, the same was cancelled by the order dated 04.05.2007. It appears that aforesaid order granting the higher pay-scale was canceled since the Local Fund office had taken the objection. After the aforesaid higher pay-scale was granted, the same was cancelled by the order dated 04.05.2007. It appears that aforesaid order granting the higher pay-scale was canceled since the Local Fund office had taken the objection. The same was subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 12616 of 2007 and allied matters before this Court and by the order dated 25.07.2007, the writ petitions were disposed of by directing the respondent to reconsider the case and representation of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners were heard by the respondent authorities and by the impugned orders dated 04.05.2007 and 29.10.2007, the earlier stand taken by the respondent authorities was maintained. A perusal of the orders reveal that the higher pay-scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 which was granted to the petitioners, has been canceled on the ground that there is no post of Senior Clerk, and the post of Head Clerk is required to be filled in as per the resolution dated 11.01.1994, hence the petitioners are not entitled to the higher pay-scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 i.e. pay-scale of Head Clerk cum Accountant but the pay-scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000 meant for the post of Senior Clerk. [9.0] At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of paragraph No. 3(3) of the resolution dated 16.08.1994. The entire controversy of conferring the higher pay-scale in the case of the petitioner’s rests on the interpretation of Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it will be necessary to have a close look at Clause 3(3) with a view to ascertaining its true nature and import. The same reads thus: “3(3) Higher pay-scale means the next immediate pay-scale of the promotional post to the current post, but if there are different promotional posts available for the employees, then the lowest pay-scale of such promotional post shall be considered as their first higher pay-scale. But, if there is no pay-scale prescribed for promotional post, then first higher pay-scale shall be granted corresponding to the present pay-scale as per the appendix - (1) attached to the present resolution. But, if there is no pay-scale prescribed for promotional post, then first higher pay-scale shall be granted corresponding to the present pay-scale as per the appendix - (1) attached to the present resolution. But, for the feeder cadres having different pay-scales, instead of fixing the higher pay-scale of their promotional post, the higher pay-scale shall be fixed as specified in appendix (1) annexed to present resolution.” [10.0] A careful scrutiny, of Clause 3(3), reveals that three categories are prescribed therein - (1) for different promotional posts available for employees, (2) if there is no promotional pay-scale prescribed and (3) where there are feeder cadres having different pay-scales. Thus, the provisions of clause 3(3) reveal that there are three categories prescribed therein for being entitled to the higher pay-scale. Para 3(3) of the resolution dated 16.08.1994 begins with the statement that “higher pay-scale means the pay-scale of the promotional post.” In the present case, it is not in dispute that the post of Head Clerk/Accountant is sanctioned by the State Government and the respondent no. 4 Committee has also not denied the existence of the promotional post of Head Clerk for the clerical cadre. The impugned orders refer to the resolution dated 11.01.1994. By the resolution dated11.01.1994, the State Government has regulated the procedure of filling up the post of non-teaching staff of the various administrative committees in the State. [11.0] In the said resolution, the provisions with regard to the filling up of the post of Head Clerk/Accountant is stipulated wherein it revealed that the Head Clerks/Accountants in the Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samiti are to be filled in from the clerical staff on the basis of seniority. It is specifically referred that such seniority of the clerk working in the clerical cadre shall be regulated by the concerned committee and accordingly, the post of Head Clerk/Accountant is required to be filled in. Thus, from the analysis of the provisions of the resolution as well as the impugned orders and the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the respondent, it is established that no post of Senior Clerk is sanctioned in the respondent No. 4 Nagar Palika. The learned advocates appearing for the respondent Samiti has admitted that there is no post of Senior Clerk available in the respondent no. 4 Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samiti. The learned advocates appearing for the respondent Samiti has admitted that there is no post of Senior Clerk available in the respondent no. 4 Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samiti. Reverting to the provisions of clause 3(2) of the resolution dated 16.08.1994, which is applicable to the present petitioners, it is evident that the higher pay-scale means the pay-scale, which is prescribed for the next promotional post and if there are no promotional posts in existence, then such higher pay-scale is required to be fixed as per appendix attached to the resolution dated 16.08.1994. Hence, the higher pay-scale of the petitioners is required to be fixed by considering the pay-scale of the next promotional post of “Head Clerk/Accountant” since there is no post of “Senior Clerk.” The respondent authorities cannot fix or grant the higher pay-scale of such a post, which is not in existence. Learned advocate for the respondents are unable to point out any provisions from the entire scheme that the higher pay-scale is required to be fixed ignoring the promotional post. It can only be done if there is no promotional post in existence and in such circumstances the higher pay-scale is required to be fixed as per the appendix attached to resolution dated 16.08.1994. [12.0] In the present case, the petitioners, who were working as Junior Clerks are entitled to be promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant as per the provisions of resolution dated 11.01.1994. Thus, as per the Scheme of the higher pay-scale, the respondent authorities cannot fix their pay-scale at Rs. 4,000-6,000 of the post of Senior Clerk as no such post exists in the set up of the respondent No. 4-Samiti. The only promotional post, which is available to the present petitioners as per the set up is the post of Head Clerk/ Accountant and hence, the earlier orders dated 06.07.2000, by which the petitioners were granted the higher pay-scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 of the post of Head Clerk were legal and valid. [13.0] In this view of the analysis and facts, the present writ petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated 04.05.2007 and 29.10.2007 are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to grant the first higher pay-scale of Rs.50008000/ to the petitioners meant for the post of Head Clerk/Accountant, which was earlier conferred to them. [13.0] In this view of the analysis and facts, the present writ petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated 04.05.2007 and 29.10.2007 are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to grant the first higher pay-scale of Rs.50008000/ to the petitioners meant for the post of Head Clerk/Accountant, which was earlier conferred to them. [14.0] Necessary orders in terms of the direction issued by this Court shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court and the arrears shall also be paid to the petitioners. Rule is made absolute.” 6. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the above quoted impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, is here before this Court with the present appeal. (I) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 7. Mr. Premal Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment. According to Mr. Joshi, in all cases where there is a promotional avenue, then the pay-scale would be given in accordance with the promotion and in cases where there is no promotional avenue, the higher pay-scale would be granted in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994. Mr. Joshi would submit that there is no promotional post of Senior Clerk with his client and the original writ applicants who were working as Junior Clerks, at the most, would be entitled for the next higher pay-scale attached to the next promotional post i.e. Senior Clerk. He would submit that the higher pay-scale is always attached to the next promotional post merely because in the set up or establishment of the appellant, there is no promotional post of Senior Clerk i.e. next promotional post from Junior Clerk that by itself would not entitle the original writ applicants to claim pay-scale attached to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant. 8. Mr. Joshi pointed out that in many establishments, the post of Senior Clerk is available and in such circumstances, the employees would be entitled to the pay-scale attached to the post of Senior Clerk. 9. Mr. Joshi would submit that Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994 has been misconstrued by the learned Single Judge for the purpose of granting benefit to the original writ applicants. 10. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. 9. Mr. Joshi would submit that Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994 has been misconstrued by the learned Single Judge for the purpose of granting benefit to the original writ applicants. 10. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Joshi prays that there being merit in his appeal, the same be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. He prays that the main matter i.e. the Special Civil Application No. 28774 of 2007 may be rejected. (II) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ORIGINAL WRIT APPLICANTS: 11. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the original writ applicants would submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in granting the benefit of the higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000 meant for the post of Head Clerk. He would submit that the plain reading of Clause 3(3) of the Resolution makes it abundantly clear that the higher pay-scale means the next immediate pay-scale of the promotional post to the current post, but if there are different promotional posts available for the employees, then the lowest pay-scale of such promotional post would be considered as their first higher pay-scale. Mr. Vyas would submit that as there is no promotional post of Senior Clerk, the pay-scale attached to the post of Head Clerk was rightly granted in favour of his client as the first higher grade scale. 12. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Vyas prays that there being no merit in this appeal, the same may be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be affirmed. (III) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE-RESPONDENT: 13. Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State respondent vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in granting the relief prayed for by the writ applicants. Mr. Devnani also supports the stance of the appellant. Mr. Devnani brought to our notice that in the main matter, the State filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply duly affirmed by the Administrative Officer (Legal) and Director of Primary Education, Gandhinagar, wherein the following has been stated: “6. I say and submit that by virtue of this order the higher pay-scale which has been granted to the present petitioners is withdrawn. Mr. Devnani brought to our notice that in the main matter, the State filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply duly affirmed by the Administrative Officer (Legal) and Director of Primary Education, Gandhinagar, wherein the following has been stated: “6. I say and submit that by virtue of this order the higher pay-scale which has been granted to the present petitioners is withdrawn. I submit that the present petitioners are junior clerks and they are working under the office of respondent No. 4. Their pay-scale is Rs. 3,050-4,590/- but as they are getting the higher pay-scale of Head Clerk cum Accountant they are getting the pay-scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000. The junior clerk is entitled for the higher pay-scale of senior clerk because for junior clerk the next promotional post is of senior clerk and not the head clerk, but by bona-fide mistake the present petitioner had received the higher pay-scale of head clerk. The pay-scale of senior clerk is Rs. 4,000-6,000. Hence the present petitioner is entitled for the higher pay-scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000 and not for Rs. 5,000-8,000. 7. I say and submit that the order which has been passed by the authority is legal, just and proper and after giving the opportunity to the present petitioner the order is passed and the orders passed are the reasoned orders and I am relying upon the reasoned orders. 8. I say and submit that it is true that in the set up, which has been sanctioned by the Government of the respondent No. 4 that the post of senior clerk is not there. The junior clerk can get the promotion of Head Clerk cum accountant. The higher pay-scale scheme came into force by virtue of Government Resolution dated 05-07-1991 and 16-08-1994. 9. I say and submit that the details of the present petition had been given by the present petitioner at Annexure B, at page-24 in which it is stated that on which date when they had passed the departmental examination and when he had completed 9 years and when they had received the higher pay-scale. 10. I say and submit that the said Government Resolution dated 16-08-1994 Para 3.3 and 3.8 the higher pay-scale should be given of the next promotional post. In the present case the present petitioners are junior clerks and they are entitled for the pay-scale of senior clerk and not the post of Head Clerk. 10. I say and submit that the said Government Resolution dated 16-08-1994 Para 3.3 and 3.8 the higher pay-scale should be given of the next promotional post. In the present case the present petitioners are junior clerks and they are entitled for the pay-scale of senior clerk and not the post of Head Clerk. Hence the pay-scale withdrawn by the authority is legal, just and proper. The copy of G.R. dated 16.08.1994 is annexed as annexure R-I. 11. I say and submit that in the other offices of Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti, the higher pay-scale of senior clerk had been granted to the junior clerk. Hence the present petitioner is not entitled for the higher pay-scale of head clerk.” 14. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Devnani, the learned A.G.P. prays that there being merit in this appeal, the same may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. (IV) ANALYSIS: 15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in passing the impugned order. 16. The learned Single Judge, in his impugned order, has rightly observed that the entire controversy is with regard to the interpretation of Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994. However, we are not able to subscribe to the interpretation put forward by the learned Single Judge of the Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994. Clause 3(3) reads thus: “3(3) Higher pay-scale means the next immediate pay-scale of the promotional post to the current post, but if there are different promotional posts available for the employees, then the lowest pay-scale of such promotional post shall be considered as their first higher pay-scale. But, if there is no pay-scale prescribed for promotional post, then first higher pay-scale shall be granted corresponding to the present pay-scale as per the appendix - (1) attached to the present resolution. But, for the feeder cadres having different pay-scales, instead of fixing the higher pay-scale of their promotional post, the higher pay-scale shall be fixed as specified in appendix (1) annexed to present resolution.” 17. The Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994 was issued with some definite object. But, for the feeder cadres having different pay-scales, instead of fixing the higher pay-scale of their promotional post, the higher pay-scale shall be fixed as specified in appendix (1) annexed to present resolution.” 17. The Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994 was issued with some definite object. The object was to ensure that the Government servants do not get stagnated at one particular post. The idea in the mind of the Government was to see that such stagnation may not lead to frustration. Keeping this in mind, the Government thought fit to come out with a policy of providing higher grade scale which may be available to the employees upon completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. In other words, if a Government servant is not able to seek promotion to the next post, then at least he should be granted the pay-scale of the next promotional post in the form of a higher grade scale to ensure that the Government servant does not get stagnated at one particular post with one particular pay-scale. 18. We are of the view that the Clause 3(3) of the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994 should be read and understood keeping in mind the object and the intention behind the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994. It is not in dispute that the writ applicants were serving as Junior Clerks and if there would have been sanctioned posts of Senior Clerk on the establishment, then obviously, they would have received the first higher grade scale attached to the post of Senior Clerk and not that of the Head Clerk. For the reason that the only available next promotional post is that of the Head Clerk so far as the writ applicants are concerned, by itself may not be sufficient for them to claim the pay-scale of Head Clerk. In consonance with spirit of the scheme in the form of the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994, the benefit of the first higher grade scale could have been conferred upon the writ applicants only in the pay-scale of 4,000-6,000 meant for the post of Senior Clerk and not that of the pay-scale of 5,000-8,000 attached to the post of Head Clerk. 19. 19. In our opinion, the benefit of the pay-scale of 4,000-6,000 attached to the post of Senior Clerk could be said to be in tune with the object with which the State Government issued the Government Resolution dated 16th August 1994. 20. The resolution dated 16th August 1994 is that of the State Government. The State Government knows it best with what object such resolution was passed and what was the intention of the Government at the relevant point of time. We have no hesitation in accepting the stance of the State Government. We find it difficult to accept the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge that the respondent authorities cannot fix or grant the higher pay-scale of such a post which is not in existence. In other words, the entire emphasis placed by the learned Single Judge is on the phrase “higher pay-scale means the pay-scale of the promotional post.” This phrase, in our opinion, should be understood and interpreted harmoniously with the scheme and the object with which the Government Resolution of the year 1994 came to be introduced. If such a phrase is literally construed, then the same may lead to an absurd situation. 21. “The essence of law lies in the spirit, not in its letter, for the letter is significant only a being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it.” - Salmond 22. In Lt. Col. Prithi Singh Bedi vs. Union of India, 1983 (3) SCC 140, at paragraph 8, held as follows: “8. The dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention of the Parliament. One of the well recognised canons is that the legislature speaks its mind by use of correct expression and unless there is any ambiguity in the language of the provision the Court should adopt literal construction if it does lead to an absurdity.....If the literal construction leads to an absurdity, external aids to construction can be resorted to. To ascertain the literal meaning it is equally necessary first to ascertain the juxtaposition in which the rule is placed, the purpose for which it is enacted and the object which it is required to sub-serve and the authority by which the rule is framed. This necessitates examination of the broad features of the Act.” 23. We propose to examine the issue from slightly a different perspective. This necessitates examination of the broad features of the Act.” 23. We propose to examine the issue from slightly a different perspective. The fact that there are no sanctioned posts of Senior Clerk on the establishment of the appellant is a fortuitous circumstance. If the interpretation, which is given by the learned Single Judge to Clause 3(3) of the Resolution, is accepted, then seniority will have no significance and force. It is possible that at other places, there may be sanctioned post of Senior Clerk and at such establishments, the employees may be much more senior than the respondents in the present case. All those would be entitled to the first higher grade scale attached to the post of Senior Clerk and not that of the Head Clerk. It is a matter of benefits to be conferred to the employees and where the seniors are not eligible for getting the benefits as they lack the necessary length of service to make them eligible for the enjoyment of benefits, a Junior person, though may be eligible, cannot be given the benefits. To permit this to be done, may create manifold difficulties, dissatisfaction, heartburning, painfulness and serious grievance amongst similarly situated employees working in the different establishments where there are vacant sanctioned posts of Senior Clerk. 24. In such circumstances referred to above, we have reached to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in allowing the writ application and granting the benefit of the higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000 i.e. the pay-scale of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant. 25. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8th January 2020 in the Special Civil Application No. 28774 of 2007 is hereby set aside. The Special Civil Application No. 28774 of 2007 is hereby ordered to be rejected. 26. We clarify that there shall not be any recovery of the excess amount already paid to the writ applicants while they were receiving the benefit of the higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000. We are saying so because the respondents have conceded that the same was granted to the writ applicants inadvertently. This is suggestive of the fact that there was no misrepresentation of any nature at the end of the writ applicants for the purpose of securing the higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000. 27. We are saying so because the respondents have conceded that the same was granted to the writ applicants inadvertently. This is suggestive of the fact that there was no misrepresentation of any nature at the end of the writ applicants for the purpose of securing the higher pay-scale of 5,000-8,000. 27. In view of the final disposal of this appeal, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.

Administrative Officer v. Girishchandra G. Punjani