ORDER : Nisha M. Thakore, J. 1. The appellants herein are the original petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of employee Shri Shirishchandra Trivedi, who expired pending the petition. The challenge is to the oral judgment dated 30.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the challenge to the action of the non-grant of benefits claiming for first higher grade pay on completion of 9 years and 18 years of service in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar based on the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 came to be dismissed. 2. The facts as pleaded by the original petitioner are briefly summarized as under: 2.1 The original petitioner was appointed to the post of Clerk under the respondent State on 19.02.1969. Thereafter, the original petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar on 16.07.1983, however because of closure of post of Mamlatdar and since other similarly situated Mamlatdars were required to be accommodated, the original petitioner was reverted back to his original cadre. On 01.07.1989 the original petitioner came to be regularly promoted to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar and he had continued on the said post till his retirement on 30.06.2003. 2.2 It is the case of the original petitioner that he had moved an application way back in the year 2001 seeking benefits of first higher grade pay scale in terms of the G.R. dated 16.08.1994, however the respondent State Authorities have not acceded to such request and the grievance of the original petitioner was not addressed. In such circumstances, the original petitioner was constrained to approach this Court invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2.3 The original petitioner prayed for the following reliefs : “(B) be pleased to quash and set aside the decision of the respondents taken vide communications dated 9/9/2003 and 20/10/2003, annexed at ANNEXURE: H-Colly. 2.3 The original petitioner prayed for the following reliefs : “(B) be pleased to quash and set aside the decision of the respondents taken vide communications dated 9/9/2003 and 20/10/2003, annexed at ANNEXURE: H-Colly. to this petition, issued by the respondent No.2, by issuing a suitable writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (C) be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to higher grade benefits on completion of nine years and eighteen years of service in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar considering the re-adjustment date of the promotion to the petitioner as on 12/12/1982 as shown in Schedule VI of the Seniority list, annexed at ANNEXURE: C to this petition, by issuing suitable direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (D) be pleased to direct the respondents to grant benefit of higher grade on completion of nine years and eighteen years of service in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar, considering the re-adjustment date of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar as 12/12/1982 as shown in the Schedule VI of the seniority list, ANNEXURE: C to this petition, and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give whatever the benefit of higher grade available to the petitioner, by issuing suitable writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (E) be pleased to direct the respondents to grant benefit of higher grade to the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner was entitled for exemption as per the circular of the State Government dated 20/12/1991, as the petitioner had already completed 45 years of age before the relevant date i.e. 5/7/1991 by issuing suitable direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (F) be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix the pensionary benefits of the petitioner after granting benefit of the higher grade to the petitioner and direct the respondents to pay the arrears of higher grade benefits as also the arrears of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, by issuing suitable directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (G) be pleased to grant interim direction, directing the respondents to grant higher grade benefit to the petitioner for rendering requisite service by the petitioner for getting higher grade in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar and grant further interim direction to pay the arrears of higher grade and also to re-fix the pensionary benefits and further grant interim direction, directing the respondents to pay the arrears of pensionary benefits on re-fixation of the pension of the petitioner as and by way of interim relief, till this petition is finally heard and decided;” 2.4 Considering the averments made in the petition, the learned Single Judge issued notice calling upon the respondent State Authorities. In response to such notice, respondent No.2, Collector, Patan had filed an affidavit and had objected to the entitlement of the original petitioner to the benefits in terms of the G.R. dated 16.08.1994. It was mainly contended by the State that the original petitioner shall not be entitled to such benefits as the original petitioner was reverted back to the post of Mamlatdar and the re-adjustment is not be considered for the purpose of grant of higher grade pay scale. Another argument which was canvassed by the State Authority was that on receipt of application made by the original petitioner on 04.01.2002, a proposal was submitted to the State to consider his case for exemption considering the fact that the original petitioner had already completed 45 years of age, however the same was returned back by the respondent No.1 State vide letter dated 12.03.2003. Ultimately, the claim of the original petitioner was denied by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 24.06.2003. The attention of the Court was invited to the G.R. dated 16.08.1994 wherein reference was made to paragraph 3 of the said G.R. which clearly states that after completion of 9 years of service on 01.06.1987, such employee shall be entitled to get benefit of first higher grade pay scale and then it would be followed by the benefit of 2nd higher grade pay scale upon completion of 18 years of service. It was further submitted that in the case of original petitioner, 9 years was completed in the cadre of Clerk on 01.06.1987 as he was recruited on 19.02.1969 on the post of Clerk and having passed the lower revenue qualifying examination, he was regularly promoted to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar on 01.07.1987. The demand of the original petitioner is rightly not acceded to considering the re-adjustment date as on 12.12.1982. 2.5 The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon appreciation of record has held as under : “8. As per Resolution dated 16th August 1994, after completion of 9 years of service on 1.6.1987, such employee would get benefit of first higher grade and then he would be entitled to get second higher grade after completion of 18 years of service. In the case of the petitioner he has completed more than nine years in the cadre of clerk on 1.6.1987. In the case of the petitioner he has completed more than nine years in the cadre of clerk on 1.6.1987. The petitioner was recruited on 19.2.1969 for the post of clerk. After a lapse of more than 13 years of service he had passed the Lower Revenue Qualifying examination in the month of August 1982 which was compulsory for promoting to the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar, the first promotion from the post of Clerk. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In any case, re-adjustment date cannot be considered for the purpose of counting period of service and the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner. In short the petitioner has failed to point out that he is eligible to get the higher grade scale in accordance with the aforesaid Government Resolution.” 2.6 Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2010, present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Goswamy appearing for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi appearing on behalf of the respondent State Authorities. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Goswamy appearing for the appellants invited our attention to the relevant dates and has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in coming to the conclusion that the original petitioner having not passed the lower revenue qualifying examination after a period of 13 years for promotion to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar shall not be entitled to the benefits of first higher grade pay scale. At this stage he invited our attention to the date of birth of the original petitioner which is 09.06.1945. He further submitted that the original petitioner completed 45 years of his age on 09.06.1990. He further invited our attention to the G.R. dated 16.08.1994 more particularly at page 107 and submitted that in view of the aforesaid proviso the original petitioner was required to be considered for the benefit of atleast first higher grade pay scale considering the exemption as provided thereunder. He, therefore, urged to consider the case of the original petitioner for entitlement of atleast first higher grade pay scale and consequential benefits which may arise. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi has referred to and relied upon the affidavit in reply filed by the State Authorities. He, therefore, urged to consider the case of the original petitioner for entitlement of atleast first higher grade pay scale and consequential benefits which may arise. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi has referred to and relied upon the affidavit in reply filed by the State Authorities. He supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the demand of the original petitioner to get the benefit of first higher grade pay scale from date of his first appointment as Deputy Mamlatdar i.e. from July, 1983 has rightly not been entertained by the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that the original petitioner was thereafter reverted back to his original cadre due to closure of the post of Mamlatdar and thereafter he was given promotion to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar from 01.07.1989 and thus, the re-adjustment of the dates has rightly not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise paragraph 3(12) of the G.R. dated 16.08.1994 clearly shows that there is restriction with regard to re-adjustment of date. He further submitted that the original petitioner having not passed the higher revenue qualifying examination which otherwise he was expected to clear even in cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar, having been promoted way back in the year 1989, the benefits in question may not be extended to the original petitioner. He, therefore, urged this Court not to entertain the present appeal. 6. We have carefully gone through the oral judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as have examined the record. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, indisputably the original petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk on 19.02.1969 wherein he had completed more than 13 years and thereafter the original petitioner was promoted on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar on 01.07.1989, which was the first promotion from the post of Clerk, having passed the lower revenue qualifying examination in the month of August, 1982 which is otherwise compulsory for promotion to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar. In such circumstances, the re-adjustment date has rightly not been considered by the learned Single Judge for the purpose of counting of period of service for extending the benefit of first higher grade pay scale however, the fact remains that the original petitioner having been regularly promoted to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar since 01.07.1989, had continued on the said post till he retired i.e. on 30.06.2003. Indisputably, the original petitioner was continued in the same cadre for around 14 years. If one looks at the G.R. dated 16.08.1994, the sole object of extending the benefit of higher grade pay scale is to compensate the employee who otherwise suffers financial stagnation, having not been promoted and had continued on the same post. In the case of the original petitioner, the State has refused to extend such benefit considering the fact that the original petitioner had failed to appear in higher revenue qualifying examination. 6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Goswami appearing for the original petitioner has relied upon the proviso at page 107 of the G.R. dated 16.08.1994 wherein it is provided that any employee who has completed 45 years of his age prior to 05.07.1991 is exempted from appearing in departmental examination and after 01.06.1987 such employees shall be entitled to first higher grade pay scale on completion of 9 years of service in a particular cadre having remained stagnant in a particular cadre for more than 9 years. We could notice that the original petitioner had completed 45 years of his age on 09.06.1990, which is prior to the date specified in the aforesaid proviso which is 05.07.1991. Thus, the original petitioner having been completed more than 45 years of his age would be entitled to get the benefit of such exemption from appearing in departmental examination. 6.2 We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed error while not accepting the case of the original petitioner with regard to his entitlement of first higher grade pay scale in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar from the date when he completed 9 years of his service. 7. In view of the above discussion, present Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed. 7. In view of the above discussion, present Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed. We hold and declare that the appellants herein – legal heirs and representatives of the original petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of first higher grade pay scale on completion of 9 years of service of the original petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Mamlatdar i.e. from 01.07.1998 and same shall be paid to the appellants herein within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. All other consequential benefits which may accrue are also granted in favor of the original petitioner. The respondent – State Authorities are further directed to make the payment of the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period as stated hereinabove failing which appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the aforesaid amount till its actual realisation. We further direct that the aforesaid amount may be equally disbursed amongst the appellants herein. Direct service is permitted.