ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Asthavadi for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Foram Trivedi for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.06.1995 and has further sought direction to the respondents to restore first higher grade pay to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.1600-2660 from 01.06.1987. In consequential prayer the petitioner has prayed for revised pension from the date of his retirement and for arrears of the pension from 31.11.1994 onwards. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Ashthawadi for the petitioner submitted that petition was actually appointed in the Industrial Training Institute at Botad under Bhavnagar District Panchayat as Assistant Instructor on 12.02.1964 in the pay-scale of Rs.100-5-150 and subsequently he was appointed as Instructor in the year 1965 in the pay-scale of Rs.150-10-200. Thereafter, he was transferred to Surat along with the establishment and petitioner was relocated at Surat. The said Training Institute i.e. ITI was closed down in the year 1988 and the petitioner was declared as ‘excess’ / surplus ( Faajal ) but his job was protected and thereafter he was appointed as Junior Clerk in the pay-scale of Instructor vide order dated 25.10.1989 in the pay-scale of Rs.900-1500/-. 3.2 When the petitioner was declared excess, he was drawing salary of Rs.1950/- in pay-scale of Rs.1100-2000/-. Hence, being aggrieved by his accommodation in the lower pay-scale of Rs.900-1500/- as against original pay-scale of Rs.1100-2000/-, the petitioner approached Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal by way of Appeal No.535 of 1989. The said Appeal was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.05.1990 and the respondents were that petitioner should be appointed as Senior Clerk and his pay and allowances etc. shall be governed by Circular dated 09.05.1989 and 18.04.1978 of the State Government. 3.3 In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Respondent No.2 placed the petitioner as Senior Clerk in Public Health Center, Sarbhon in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 01.04.1988. shall be governed by Circular dated 09.05.1989 and 18.04.1978 of the State Government. 3.3 In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Respondent No.2 placed the petitioner as Senior Clerk in Public Health Center, Sarbhon in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 with effect from 01.04.1988. 3.4 Thereafter, the State Government issued Government Resolution dated 05.07.1991 whereby scheme related to higher pay-scale was introduced and accordingly the proposal was sent to the concerned department of Respondent No.1 in the year 1994 and the petitioner was paid first higher pay-scale in the grade of Rs.1600-2600/- on completion of 9 years with effect from 01.06.1987. 3.5 The aforesaid action was also approved by the Local Fund Office and also recorded in the service book of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1994. 3.6 Somehow vide communication dated 28.04.1995 issued by the Respondent No.3 i.e. Account Officer, Local Fund Office, Surat, the Respondent No.3 passed an order dated 07.06.1995 reverting the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 and fixed revised salary of the petitioner from 01.04.1988 in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040/- from salary of Rs.1600-2660/- which the petitioner was receiving at the time of his retirement. 3.7 As a consequential action, vide order dated 04.09.1995, a recover of Rs.12817/- was ordered. 3.8 At the relevant point of time, the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.06.1995. Instead the petitioner after delay of almost 14 years challenged the action of the respondent of recovering Rs.12817/- before the Civil Services Tribunal by filing Appeal No.232 of 2009 as at the relevant point of time by way of last communication dated 30.09.2009, the respondents have stated that amount already recovered from the salary of the petitioner cannot be refunded back to the petitioner. 3.9 The aforesaid appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 02.01.2017 by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar and the respondents were directed to return the amount of Rs.12817/- which has already been recovered from the petitioner. 3.9 The aforesaid appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 02.01.2017 by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar and the respondents were directed to return the amount of Rs.12817/- which has already been recovered from the petitioner. While passing the aforesaid order, the Tribunal considered the fact that petitioner has already retired on 30.11.1994 and by considering the judgment of Apex Court as well as Division Bench of this Court, Court took into consideration the fact that even if some payment is mistakenly made by the employee, the hardship of the employee on issue of recovery, the Court observed that it is not possible to postulate all situation of hardship that the employee may face and it is observed that recovery from retired employees or employers who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery could not have been made. 3.10 Accordingly the petitioner was returned the amount which was already recovered i.e. Rs.12817/-. 3.11 After the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner was decided in the year 2017 vide order dated 02.01.2017, the petitioner has preferred the present petition after delay of 24 years and challenged the order dated 07.06.1995. 3.12 When learned advocate Mr. Ashtawadi was confronted with the question about delay and as to how delay has been explained, learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi drew attention of this Court that the petitioner has explained delay by making following submission in para 31 of the petition. “31. It is submitted that delay cause in preferring this petition may be condoned in the interest of justice as petitioner was under impression that after the result of the appeal before Ld Tribunal, he will get back the withdrawn higher grade pay scale. It is further submitted that even otherwise the cause is continuous and this is continuous wrong by the authority and no third party claim is affected, hence, petition of the petitioner be considered on merit.” Barring that, there was no answer coming forward from learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi for explaining the delay of 24 years. 3.13 Upon inquiry from the Court, learned advocate Mr. Ashtawadi also fairly conceded that at the relevant point of time the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.06.1995 and it is challenged after period of 24 years only after the petitioner succeeded in his application filed against recovery of the amount pursuant to the order dated 07.06.1995. 3.13 Upon inquiry from the Court, learned advocate Mr. Ashtawadi also fairly conceded that at the relevant point of time the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.06.1995 and it is challenged after period of 24 years only after the petitioner succeeded in his application filed against recovery of the amount pursuant to the order dated 07.06.1995. 4.1 In this backdrop, learned advocate Mr. Ashtawadi submitted that even if there is delay of 24 years in challenging the order dated 07.06.1995, the action of the respondent of giving higher pay-scale of Rs.1600-2660, and subsequently withdrawing it was continuous action and, therefore, by relying upon two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court he submitted that the delay of 24 years could not come in the way of the petitioner. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Ashthawadi relied upon decision dated 13.08.2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh rendered in Civil Appeal No.5151-5152 of 2008 and by relying upon para 5 of the said decision, he submitted that exception to the rule of delay and laches is that in cases relating to a continuing wrong where services related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be even if there is long delay in seeking remedy. He submitted that action of the respondent of placing the petitioner in lower pay-scale vide order dated 07.06.1995 can be said to be a continuous wrong and, therefore, question of delay would not come in his way. 4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Ashthawadi also relied upon decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Patil (dead) through Lrs vs. State of Goa and Anr. dated 20.05.2022 rendered in Civil Appeal No.4100 of 2022 and by relying upon para 3 of the said decision he submitted that as far as pension is concerned, the action of respondent can be said to be a continuous cause of action. 4.4 By relying upon aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned advocate Mr. dated 20.05.2022 rendered in Civil Appeal No.4100 of 2022 and by relying upon para 3 of the said decision he submitted that as far as pension is concerned, the action of respondent can be said to be a continuous cause of action. 4.4 By relying upon aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi submitted that the action of respondent no.3 of placing the petitioner in lower pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040/- from the pay-scale of Rs.1600-2660/- is illegal and since the aforesaid action has resulted into reduction in his pension, the same can be said to be a continuous cause of action and, therefore, delay would not come in his way and the petition is required to be examined on merits rather than deciding it on the basis of delay. 4.5 Except above two decisions relied upon and submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi, neither any other submissions are made nor any judgments are cited by learned advocate Mr. Asthwadi. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petition is preferred after delay of 24 years as the petitioner retired from services on 30.11.1994. At the relevant point of time, though the order dated 07.06.1995 was there petitioner did not challenge it and the petitioner could have challenged the aforesaid order at the time petitioner preferred an application challenging recovery of Rs.12817/- pursuant to the order dated 30.09.2009. However, at that time also the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.06.1995 and, therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the action of respondents of placing the petitioner in lower pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040 belatedly after period of 24 years. Further, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that any reduction in pension is based upon order dated 07.06.1995 which has remained unchallenged for 24 years and, therefore, when the petitioner has manly challenged the order dated 07.06.1995 by way of this petition and all other releifs are consequential in nature, the challenge to the action of respondents by way of this petition cannot be said to be a continuous action and, therefore, judgments relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 07.06.1995 after delay of 24 years more particularly when the petitioner had challenged the order of recovery without challenging the order dated 07.06.1995 in the year 2009 before the Tribunal when the petitioner preferred Appeal No.232 of 2009. 5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw further pointed out from para 31 of the petition and submitted that even delay of 24 years has not been sufficiently explained by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Foram Trivedi also vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that a petition filed after delay of 24 years may not be entertained. 7.1 I have heard learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Foram Trivedi for respondent Nos.3 and 4 State Authorities. 7.2 It is true that petitioner has for the first time challenged the order dated 07.06.1995 only after delay of 24 years in the year 2018. The petitioner, in para 31 of the petition, has explained the delay as under : “31. It is submitted that delay cause in preferring this petition may be condoned in the interest of justice as petitioner was under impression that after the result of the appeal before Ld. Tribunal, he will get back the withdrawn higher grade pay scale. It is further submitted that even otherwise the cause is continuous and this is continuous wrong by the authority and no third party claim is affected, hence, petition of the petitioner be considered on merit.” 7.3 Reading of para 31 of the petition, as stated in the petition, would indicate that except for stating that cause is continuous and this is continuous wrong the petitioner has not explained the delay by stating anything. The petitioner has tried to justify the delay by stating that petitioner was under impression that after result of the appeal in Tribunal he will get higher pay-scale which was withdrawn. The petitioner has tried to justify the delay by stating that petitioner was under impression that after result of the appeal in Tribunal he will get higher pay-scale which was withdrawn. 7.4 The aforesaid justification cannot be accepted for the fact that on perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 02.01.2017 passed in Appeal No.232 of 2009, it is categorically stated that what was challenged before the Tribunal was the communication of respondent dated 30.09.2009 whereby respondent finally said that petitioner will not get any refund of amount to the tune of Rs.12817/- which was already recovered from the petitioner. 7.5 The aforesaid would go to show that even in the year 2009 the petitioner challenged only the action of recovering the amount from pensionary benefits of the petitioner and not the original action of 1995 i.e. the order dated 07.06.1995 which would amount to waiver on the part of the petitioner at the relevant time itself. It is only after petitioner succeeded in his application against recovery that the petitioner has preferred present petition challenging the order dated 07.06.1995. 7.6 The considering the fact that petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.06.1995 at the relevant point of time, nor he challenged the said order in the year 2009 when the petitioner challenged the action of the recovery, the action of the respondents placing the petitioner in the lower pay-scale cannot be said to be a continuous wrong for continuous cause of action. Since the action of the respondent cannot be said to be continuous action or continuous wrong, the judgments cited by learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi would not help him as those are in respect of a continuous wrong. 7.7 For the reason that the delay of 24 years has not been sufficiently explained by the petitioner and the petition is preferred after period of 24 years after the order dated 07.06.1995, present petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself and the same is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.